mr. berman: mr. speaker, the conference agreement for h.r. 2194 is by far the most comprehensive iran sanctions legislation congress has ever passed. this legislation greatly strengthens our nation's overall sanctions regime regarding iran, enhances the prospect that we will be able to dissuade teran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions in blatant defiance of the internationa . . like the house bill passed in december, the conference agreement imposes sanctions on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to iran, assist iran with its domestic refining capacity, plugs a critical gap now sanctions rejet stream by imposing sanctions on foreign entities that sell iran goods or services to help it develop its energy sector. some believe iran has prepared itself for tougher energy

sanctions by reducing its dependence on the import of refined petroleum to ensure that our sanctions are as effective as possible, we added a potent new financial measure in conference that, if applied effectively by the administration, has the potential to be a game changer that provision sanctions foreign banks that deal with the iran's revolutionary guard corps or other blang listed iranian institutions including iranian banks in terrorism, foreign banks involved in facilitating such activities would be shut out of the u.s. financial system and u.s. banks would not be allowed to deal with them. the conference report also requires the executive branch to pursue all credible evidence of sanctionable activity. we have been profoundly unhappy over the years that successive administrations failed to implement the 1996 iran sanctions act. our bill will also put an end to the absurd practice of the

u.s. government awarding contracts to companies engaged in sanctionable activity. in addition, the legislation imposes penalties on iran's human rights abudesers, sanctions foreign entities that provide iran with the means to stifle freedom of expression. this portion of the bill will absolutely not terminate until + iran unconditionally releases all political prisoners and ends torture of citizens engaged in peaceful political activity. finally, the conference committee will help empower iran's democratic -- iran's exemption by transfering from our embargo by transferring to help them overcome this. doing nothing certainly won't work. in light of iran's rapid progress toward achieve agnew clear weapons capability, tie taye ran's reppated rejection

of president obama's diplomatic overtures, the measures in this conference agreement if implemented effectively are our best, and i believe our only, hope for a positive and peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue. the two alternatives to strong sanctions are both horrible and horrifying. either employing the military option or even worse, accepting nevittability of iran as a nuclear power. the u.s. congress needs to do everything it can to ensure we can avoid both of these miserable results. we have taken some steps in the past. we can do far more today by voting to pass the enhanced sanctions and h.r. 2194 and i reserve the ballnce of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recoonized. ms. ros-lehtinen: there have been many examples of states

through history which were targeted by rising enemies but failed to take action to prevent a potential threat from becoming a mortal one. this is at the crux of today's debate that congress will be sending to the president a long list of sanctions for him to implement. if they are implemented vigorously this legislation could constitute decisive action to compel the iranian regime to end its nuclear weapons pursuit to end its chemical and biological weapons and missile program, end its state sponsorship of global jihaddist and cease being a significant threat to our nation to our interests and to our important critical allies such as the democratic jewish state of israel. if, as success every u.s. administrations have done, the sanctions are ignored, we will have failed the american people. the iranian regime has been constructing the means to make nuclear weapons along with the missiles with which to strike

other countries for decades. 15 years ago, the u.s. took the lead to stop iran. the u.s. demonstrated its commitment by withdrawing from commercial activities involving this rogue state. congress then enacted the iran sanctions act hoping to use it as leverage for cooperation from our allies in preventing the iranian threat from escalating the 1996 law sought consultations first but called for the imposition of sanctions unless allied governments had, and i quote, taken specific and effective actions including as appropriate the imposition of penalties to terminate the involvement, end quote, of their nntionals in the sanctionable activities. but as the iranian threat has grown, our allies have taken very limited steps%regarding iran. tthe international community ha merely supported tepid u.n. security council resolutions that impose modest sanctions on

the regime while restating the willingtons engage in negotiations and offer concessions to tehran. some countries have actively opposed placing any punitive measures on the iranian regime, despite the fact that its violations of its international obligations have been repeatedly demonstrated by the international atomic energy agency. russia and china in particular have acted as surrogates for iran and watered down every proposed security council reeolution. there the regime in tehran has reason to be grateful for their efforts and their tireless work on their behalf. how sad. now the u.s. has chosen to reward the likes of russia by removing sanctions on entities assisting the iranian nuclear missile program and offering the russian federation a nuclear cooperation agreement on the same day that the

russian president offered the same nuclear deal to the syrian regime. we are at a defining moment, mr. speaker. the opportunity we have before us in the form of this conference report may well prove to be one of the last best hopes to force iran to end its nuclear weapons policeman and its policies that threaten our security. when appointed as a conferee for this bill was for the final product to have a comprehensive,,crippling sanction policy targeting the iranian regime. in principle, this conference report is a step forward. it expands the types of sanctions and the range of actors and activities to be sanctioned in an effort to strike at the iranian regime's key vulnerabilities, especially its dependence on refined petroleum. the most important are a set of financial measures that, if implemented, would force foreign financial institutions

to choose between doing business with iran or with us in the united states. it also increases penalties on violators, unffrpblt it contain ascii element that could significantly undercut its effectiveness. multiple exceptions and waivers for the president and executive branch officials. that means that by a stroke of a pen, substantive provisions can be transformed into mere recommendations or options. we must not allow this to happen. mr. speaker, i would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kirk to submit his statement into the record. mr. kirk: i thank the ranking member and i want to thank my colleague, rob anders, because we wrote the first version of this legislation in 2005. it's been five years of work, i want to commend the chairman for bringing it to the floor, i have a prepared statement i'd like to insert in the record, with one simple statement. mr. president, sign this bill

and then seal off iran's gas. that is the best way to empower diplomacy. the gasoline sanction is the only sanction that has the correct chance of working. this has overwhelming bipartisan consensus, supported by 512 members of congress to back this. i want to thank my original partner on this, congressman and druse of new jersey. ms. ros-lehtinen: we reserve the balance of our time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield to the chairman of the armed services committee, mr. skillton, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: che gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from california for yielding to me and i rise in strong support of this bill. this bill is a good will and -- bill and i urge my colleagues to support it and in my capacity as chairman of the

house armed services committee, i'm very familiar with the potential threat posed by the iranian nuclear weapons program to the united states and to our allies. an iran armed with nuclear with weapons and the means to use them and governed by fa nan gnatics would pose a great threat to the united states, our troops in the roe region and our allies, particularly israel. this administration is taking significant steps to dissuade iran from heading down the path of developing nuclear weapons. president obama pushed sanctions through the united nations security council and developed a new missile defense program in europe to show the iranian government their weapons programs cannot harm us. only themselves. the administration has made significant strides but congress can help those efforts in this billion -- and this bill would sanction those companies that sell technology

services or no how to help iran develop its energy sector. it would lock out of the united states markets any bank that deals with iranian revolutionary guard corps. the nuclear program or terrorism. it imposes penalties on those foreign entities which provide iran with the ability to stifle freedom of speech. mr. speaker, these are real sanctions, targeted in the right way to hopefully head off a real threat. sanctions are our best hope of dissuading iran from developing nuclear weapons. we've reached out to them and tried to deal with them diplomatically but they refuse to deal openly and honestly. sanctions are the right steps to take at this time and courage -- and i encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm proud to yield three minutes tt the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, the esteemed minority whip.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cantor: i thank the gentlelady from florida and i commend her in her leadership as well as the gentleman from california in accomplishing this momentous feat of bringing this conference report to the floor, mr. speaker. i rise in favor of this conference report. mr. speaker, winston churchill famously said that the price of greatness is responsibility. with each passing day, the ruling regime in iran defiantly moves one step closer to acquiring nuclear weapons. a prospect that everyone knows would have fatal and irremember rabble consequences across the globe. as thee the free world's unparalleled moral, economic, and military power, we have a responsibility to provide strong leadership to head off the iranian threat. it's time to see the iranian regime not for what we wish it

was but for how it really is. 17 months of engagement has yielded us just one u.n. resolution defanged by countries such -- defamed by countries such as russia and china but yield ide tehran 18 critical months to ramp up uranium enrichment. today the house will vote on the most sweeping set of sanctions iran has jet to face. by penalizing international companies that enrich the iranian regime and enable the nuclear program this legislation represents our strongest hope yet to bring peaceful resolution to this crisii. mr. speaker, congress and the administration must resolve to do all we can to cut off iran's economic lifeline. once this legislation moves past congress, the ball is in the white house's court. the ability to hold

international companies accountable rests with the president. i urge him to sign the bill and immediately implement these tough sanctions. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this conference report. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to the chairman of the middle east and south asia subcommittee who has been a wonderful partner on this legislation, the gentleman from new york, mr. ackerman, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ackerman: i thank the chairman for his leadership. mr. speaker, this bill has peace, real peace, great big, nasty sharp teeth that are finally going to force businesses and banks around the world to choose between the american economy and financial system or business as usual with iran's dictatorship. this bill has real sanctions. not maybe sanctions, not sort of sanctions, but real sanctions.

this bill has real sanctions investigations requirements, not maybe we'll look at and not we'll try to get it -- to it when we can. but clear and legal requirements to investigate potential violations. in short, this is a bill that forces the question, will the world watch passively as iran crosses the nuclear arms threshold or are will we join together to compel iran to pull back from the nuclear brink? we cannot guarantee the success of these measures. ultimately the choices lie with the regime in tehran. but it should be clear that we are doing all we can to impose on iran the highest possible cost for its defines that we are demonstrating by our actions and by our efforts, the depths of our commitment to peacefully ending iran's nuclear activities. we are try diplomacy, we are trying unilateral sanctions, we are trying multilateral sanctions, we are trying our utmost to make conflict inevitable.

but there should be no question about the absolute determination of the united states to prevent iran from acquiring the capability to produce nuclear weapons. iran's illicit nuclear activities and programs must stop. above all other considerations, above all other costs, without any doubt or with uncertainty, iran's nuclear program must be stopped. it must be stopped and we begin that today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm so pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, the chairman of the house republican conference, a member of the committee on foreign affairs and a house conferee on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutee. mr. pence: i thank the distinguished gentlelady for yield and for her leadership on this important legislation. i also want to commend chairman berman who worked in good faith on this legislation as well. it's my honor to serve on the conference committee. and i rise in support of the

iran sanctions accountability and divestment act. i believe this legislation is urgent and it represents measurable and meaningful progress in the united states effort economically and diplomatically isolate iran in the midst of its head-long rush to obtain a usable nuclear weapon. %% it is important not only that we adopt the iran sanctions bill today, it is important that this administration forcefully implement this legislation. we know the nature of the threat. iran's made no secret of its intent to use nuclear weapons. the threat in the united states and our allies, president ahmadinejad said in 2005, and i quote, humankind shall soon experience a world without the united states and without zionism, closed quote. led by this antiamerican, antiisrael president, iran is long associated with terrorist organizations and this is the

central point. not only would this rogue regime come into possession of usable nuclear weapons, should sanctions fail, but would only be a matter of time before terrorist organizations around the world would have access to this technology. and that is unacceptable. but as we adopt these important sanctions, a word of caution. as has been noted, these sanctions include a number of waivers demanded by the obama administration. it is essential that the obama administration carry out the clear congressional intent of passing crippling sanks on the energy and financial sectors in iran. as the joint plan istory statement provides, quote, the effeetiveness of this act will depend on its forceful implementation. iran could be merely months away from acquiring nuclear weapons, they continue to test vehicles that could deliver it, now is the moment for decisive action by the congress and decisive implementation. if we act and this

administration forcefully implements these sanctions, we may yet see a future of security and peace in the middle east. but if we fail to act, or if these sanctions are not forcefully implemented, history may well judge this congress and this government in the harsh aftermath of a flash of light, a rush of wind and a second historic tragedy. let that not be the case. let us act in concert today, let us adopt these iran sanctions and, mr. president, do not waven these sanctions -- waven theee sanctions. i yield back -- waive these sanctions. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to the chairman of the house ways andd means committee, a key member of the conference committee on this bill, a bill that has a number of areas within the jurisdiction of the ways and means committee, my friend, the gentleman from

micchigan, mr. levin, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: i want to congratulate mr. berman and the ranking member. this indeed is a critical achievement. not only because it send as clear and unbe a bim white house message that iran must end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, but because it provides the president with powerful tools to achieve this crucial objective. it will reinforce and enhance the administration's efforts regarding iran. it provides the administration with a renewed mandate and substantial leverage to employ against the regime of iran. toward the goal of stopping its development of weapons of mass + destruction and support of terrorism, what could be more important? it is also not only

fundamentally in the national interest, but in the interest of the international community. a nuclearized iran that supports terrorism is simply unacceptable. it is encouraging that the u.s. is not acting alone. the international community has spoken. thanks to the administration's leadership, supported by this congress, and the support of key allies, the u.n. security council adopted expansive and severe sanctions on iran. in this legislation -- and this legislation builds off the security council sanctions. diplomacy and strong multilateral sanctions have been a critical part of this -- part of this process. the more countries that participate in this mission, the more effective it will be and this bill, thanks to the leadership here, has built on this essential premise. i look forward to the passage of

this legislation and i thank the administration for its leadership on this issue and you, mr. chairman, for your tremendous work on moving this legislation forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. burttn, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee, on middle east and south asia, as well as a house conferee on this important measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's recognized for two minutes. mr. burton: mr. speaker, if i were talking to the president right now, i would remind him that lord chamberlain flew to munich in the late 1930's and signed agreement -- an agreement with her hitler that led to 60 million people being killed in world war ii. 60 million. we were not in the nuclear age at that time but we still lost 60 million people in this world. we are now in the nuclear age

and that's why this legislation is so important. there are waivers in this bill and that really troubles me. didn't want there to be any waivers in this conference report, but they're there. the president can waive these sanctions. and i would just like to say, if i were talking to the president, look at history, mr. president. look at what happened because of a weak-kneed approach back in the late 1930's that led to 60 million people dying in woled -- world war ii. and don't let that happen now. we need to let ahmadinejad and the leaders in iran know that we mean business and that means don't waive any of the sanctions we're passing here today. you have the authority, but don't do it. they're building a nuclear weapon, everybody in the world knows it, and if a nuclear weapon is set off, millions will die. and it could lead to a con flig ration that would be worldwide -- conflagration that would be worldwide in scope. there are problems with this bill, i'd like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the harddwork they've put into it. i wish those waivers weren't

there, but they are. so we're talking now, if i were talking to the president, that's what i would say to him. and i'd also like to say, don't let the russians get awhich with continuing to give nuclear technology and other technology to the iran ans -- iranians. with that said i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mook, i'm pleased to yield to my -- mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to my friend from oregon, mr. blumenauer, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. blumenauer: i thank the gentleman. i rise in reluctant opposition. but reluctant, i want to acknowledge the hard work of my friend and colleague, chairman berman, in piloting this legislation through difficult times. he made some important improvements and i appreciate his willingness to delay final action while the administration negotiated ar-reaching multinational sanctions against the iranian regime. i'm also reluctant because i understand what animates this

legislation. we are all appalled at the repressive behavior of the regime towards itt own people, the destabilizing effort it has in the international arena and we all recoil at the prospect of nuclear weapons falling in the hands of this regime. the problem is, the legislation is not likely to accomplish these ends and poses problems for this, indeed, any administration to be able to conduct the foreign policy of the united states. i would also oppose restrictions of this nature on the clinton administration or the bush administration. the irony is that congress seeks to impose its will as exactly the time the obama administration has secured significant diplomatic success. i'm concerned that enacting the legislation cuts our credibility going forward. as long as the global economy runs on oil, iran's massive reserves continue to make them a player. the world will buy their oil and the world will sell them refined oil products. even with additional sanctions, the question is not will it

work, but who is profittng and how? it stands likely that the revolutionary guard in countries like china will benefit and not one member of the iran an elite will lack for gasoline while ordinary iranians will go without. this is particularly counterproductive when one notes by all accounts that every day iranians -- everyday iranians still like americans. yet this legislation allows the regime to rally support by blaming the united states for hardships. they will use this as an opportunity to end their current unsustainable subsidies for petroleum products which they would have been forced to do anyway, only now they get to blame america. this approach has been a failur% in the past, notably with cuba, where our unyielding, aggressive sanctions policy, f anything, has propped up a regime that would have fallen into the dust bin of history years ago. they didn't stop north korea from nuclear weapons.

the sanctions policy against iraq produced suffering for the people but made no difference to saddam hussein. most recently, years of harsh sanctions in gaza, much easier to enforce than against iran, did not topple hamas, but strengthened it. while it created a very difficult humanitarian situation. this legislation will, undoubtedly, pass. while it makes some people feel better to seem like they're doing something, i strongly suspect it will have little constructive result on iranian behavior, perhaps undercut support of the iranian people for the united states and our principles, and is setting a precedent for congress seeking to direct the conduct of american foreign policy. this goes beyond republicans and democrats, beyond the obama administration. it's a path think a think we should all be reluctant to take and it is why i am voting no.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. ed royce, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade and a house conferee on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. royce: i thank the gentlelady for yield diagnose, yielding and in response to the previous speaker, i remind my colleagues that sanctions did work in south africa and that south africa gave up its atomic weapons program. the threat, my friends, in iran is crystal clear. and its regime closes in on a nuclear weapon. so a crystal clear response by us is urgent. while i support this bill, much of this legislation unfortunately is a muddle. good sanctions, good sanctions in this bill are weakened by delays and by the possibility of

waiver after waiver. for this, the obama administration gets the main blame. from the beginning it has insisted on excessive leeway to implement new sanctions. it doesn't want to be forced into dramatic actton. so, yes, we do provide the tools with this bill, they're in there. but there's little guarantee that those tools will be used. for example, the house bill aimed to target iran's energy sector. yet with this conference report, a foreign oil company could avoid even the investigation required to sanction it for at least one year. the many companies from china and elsewhere rapidly building iran's energy facilities today will be surely exempted from these sanctions. this reports aggressive financial sanctions that likely

aim at iran's revolutionary guard corps. while while important, they too can be waived. the so called mandatory financial sanctions aren't even mandatory. this report does require a barrage of reports, certifications and other executive branch paper, meanwhile in the real world, iran marches on. i.d. be less critical -- i'd be less critical if the obama administration or if previous administrations had applied a single sanction using existing iran sanctions legislation. instead, it has naively -- the obama administration has naively given iran time with its engagement policy. i'll be supporting this bill because it does give the administration the tools should it wish to use those tools. more likely, it will have to be pressured into action.

mr. speaker, either -- even thorough bust sanctions may not deter iran, we need to strengthen our missile defense, target iran's human rights abusers and bolster its oppositton movement. the clock is ticking. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. >> mr. speaker, i'd like to recognize myself for 30 seconds. my friend from california raises, as others have, the issue of waivers. i just want to remind the body, this legislation has increased the standard of her waivers. tightened the situation and waivers can be given. mr. berman: remember, we're talking about a process i hope will be rarely used and i think we have to push that notion. we're not talking about ahmadinejad giving the waivers or the supreme leaders giving the waivers, the violating company giving the waivers. we're talking about a president of the united states hopefully utilizing the enhanced standard

waiver authority, a president who has spent more time diplomatically and in every other way trying to stop iran from achieving this goal than any other president in the history of this country has ever done. i'll stand with this legislation, with this authority, with this president as the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions ever on the iran nuclear weapons program. and now i would like to yield two minutes to the the gentleman from new york, a key supporter of this legislation, the chairman of the western hemisphere subcommittee, elliot engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rangel: i thank chairman berman for letting me speak and i strongly support this act. i'm a proud co-sponsor of the bill. this is a bipartisan bill, as you can hear, and should be passed. last fall, the world learned of a secret iranian nuclear enrichment facility.

if there was ever any doubt that iran was trying to build nuclear weapons, this revolution dispeled any shred of our doufment we need strong sanctions on iran to halt the development of nuclear weapons. iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear bomb. i commend president obama and secretary clinton for achieving the strong fourth round of u.n. sanctions against iran and for bringing russia and china onboard. the chairman of the western hem fear subcommittee, i'd like to call attention that venezuelan president hugo chavez at one time agreed to provide 20,000 barrels per day of refined gasoline to iran and to invest in the iranian natural gas sector. iran is an importer of refined gas and this bill will hit them where it hurts, in the energy and financial sectors. i'd liie to also support my support for section 110 of the bill which requires a report on other energy imports into iran. the u.s. and brazil are the world's largest ethanol producers and i'm glad to hear from brazil's private ethanol producers that they have no plan to supply ethanol to iran,

bbending it to gasoline, as they prefer to build a global export market an cord by the u.s. and european markets. that's why this bill is so important. we must continue to monitor thi% area, the ethanol imports could undermine energy sanctions on iran. it has been recognized that a nuclear armed iran would be a danger not only to israel but also to the entire middle east and the nuclear non-proliferation regime and is sun acceptable, when ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe israel off the face of the earth, he means it. when he calls the u.s. the great state, he means it. we need this bill to hit them where it hurts and i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill today. i yield back. ms. ros-lehtinen: thankkyou, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm proud to yield to mr. garrett, the ranking member on government sponsored enterprises as well as a house conferee on this measure.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognizeded for two minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the gentlelady. many have urged me to ensure congress enacts strong sanctions. we are all too well aware of the existential threat that a nuclear powered iran would be. but today we are about to pass a conference report that was supposed to protect americans and our allies. if that was our goal, i believe we only have partial success. as a conferee representative, i do admit that the sanctions themselves have been approved. i was pleased to see the legislation would cut off the connections between the u.s. financial sector and foreign financial institutions that do business with iran. yet the conference report, ye it does add additional types of sanctions and extends the range of current sanctions. but i remind my colleagues that these punishths are hardly crippling. they're hardly tough. they're hardly sweeping or even expanded if they're never enforced. now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this time they'll work. but let me remind them a little

bit of history. in 1996, congress passed the original iran sanction legislation, but in the last 14 years, no president has imposed sanctions even though he has had the authority from congress to do so. in fact, only one investigation was ever initiated. i'd say this this report is really only a half measure, a half bill, because 50% of it depends on who? on president obama's willingness to implement the sanctions quickly. this legislation does in fact have seven separate waivers with the president and many votes. there are three different waiver thresholds. the end result is that the president has the option of enforcing most of the punitive measures outlined in the report. multiple democrats have attempted to reassure me. they'd say that they will now pressure the president to implement the sanctions outlined in this legislation. we've been hearing that for 16 months. we've been told that the president's attempts to engage the u.n. about iran would produce diplomatic gains.

really, the past resolution was hardly that significant of a success. further more, president obama himself recognized two weeks ago that iran canceled a nuclear enrichment facility, b, it violated its own obligation, it's enriching uranium up to 20%. mr. berman: i'm very pleased to yield one minute to mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. crowley: i was proud to meet with the committee that negotiated the sanctions disability act. i will strongly support the passage of this agreement. this tough set of sanctions that is said that the government of the united states will not stand

by idly as iran threatens its neighbors. en under this measure, my company doing business with iran will undergo serious scrutiny and could be subject to tough penalties. the sanction's measures will also ensure that we expose those that have committed serious acts of abuse against iranians who are struggling for democracy and free do. right now iran is being led by ahmadinejad. his authority is not only illegitimate because of how iran's elections were conducted but because of his blatant disregard for the community. he has now pressed ahead with uranium enrichment and bothed that the new sanctions are nothing but, and i quote, worthless paper. he stands in clear and stark defiance of the national atomic agency and the entire world's nuclear non-proliferation efforts. we must act now. we're going to show ahmadinejad that the u.n. sanctions and these we are about to pass today are not worthless paper. he is about to be proven very,

very wrong that the days of the united states turns a blind eye are now officially over. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm proud to yield one minute to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, a member of our committee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: jise for one minute. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, the time to stop iran's nuclear drive is running very short. unless the community of responsible nations takes decisive actions, the world will soon awake to the headline iran has a nuclear bomb. a nuclear-armed iran will pose a very real threat to civilization itself, increasing the dangers of a destabilizing nuclear arms race in the world's most volatile region. iran clearly doubts the collective resolve of world powers. it's not difficult to see why. while some european leaders vacillate, european corporations continue to do business with

iran. and russia and china as well continue to exploit international hesitancy for their own geopolitical and financial gain. the community of responsible nations must prevail upon iran to abandon its dangerous nuclear ambitionn and forge a new path to security and stability for itself. we all look forward to the day when iran is governed by leaders who fully respect the right to their own people and faithfully observe the obligations of international law. today iran's sanctions legislation represents an intermediate yet important step in that sustained effort. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california? mr. berman: please to recognize the the gentleman from new york, mr. mcmahon, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcmahon: i am proud with this conference report our country will be at the forefront

of protecting israel and the entire international community against a growing threat of nuclear-related terrorism and an arms race in the middle east. this sanction package takes a firm stand against an active state sponsored terror of iran by broadening the categories of the islamic republic sanctionable activities well beyond the realm of refined petroleum. further more with increased global cooperation on the sanctions effort and measures to isolate ahmadinejad's thugs from raping, murdering, and censoring their own people, these sanctions would not be complete. for this reason, i aplalled the in-- applaud the inclusion of the mcmahon requirement and my bill h.r. 4647 the iran human sanctions act into this bill. i know that americans will rest much more comfortably knowing that the criminals of ahmadinejad's regime now cannot step foot on u.s. soil. this bill is necessary to the security of our ally israel, to our nation, and to the world. i therefore urge all of my colleagues to vote for it, and i

i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to mr. roskam, an esteemed member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. roskam: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. history is incredibly helpful for us at a time like this. aagust 13, 1961, there was an order given to move forward and put up the berlin wall. at first, it was just barbed wire that morning. and over a period of time, as we know, it moved from barbed wire to concrete, and ultimately to the wall, and really the edifice that was the sim bomb of an -- symbol of an impressive rejeesm i think we're wise to be measured and sobered by those acts in history. this legislation is a step toward dealing with the incrementalist vision that ahmadinejad in iran has.

it's been said there are weaknesses in the bill. the weakness is putting a lot of trust frankly in an administration that has underperformed in in area. my hope and expectation is that the administration will use this tool, recognize the serious threat, and recognize the type of tool that they're able to use to go after this regime. this is an important piece of legislation. i'm pleased to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: could i ask how much time there is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 7 1/2 minutes, and the gentlelady from california has 6 1/2 minutes. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker is recognized for one minute. the speaker: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding.

i thank him for his great leadershhp in bringing this very important legislation to the floor and i want to commend leader hoyer and whip cantor for the bipartisan spirit with which this bill was brought to the floor. the leadership of the committee, mr. berman, ranking member russ leighton, thank you to both of you for your leadership. bringing us together around this very important issue. i'm proud to rise in strong support of the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and divestment act, which will provide the president with more tools to address the looming nuclear threat from iran. . all members of congress agree that a nuclear iran is unacceptable. it is a threat to the region, the united states and our allies across the globe. the regime has demonstrated its refusal to work in good faith to

eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons in the middle east and around the world. iran has concealed major nuclear facilities, repeatedly blocked u.n. inspectors from doing their jobs and wants to wipe israel off the face of the map. these actions are a clear record of defiance. and iran must be a peafl partner in the international community and we must use all the tools at our disposal to stop iran's march towards nuclear capability. this month under president obama's leadership, the u.n. security council passed its far-reaching set of sanctions targeting its nuclear program and financial system.

today with the passage of this legislation and when it goes to the president's desk to be signed, we will give the president new tools to impose sanctions against companies that sell iran technology so this the materials for its energy and petroleum sector and offer foreign banks a choice, they can deal with institutions that support weapons of mass destruction and terrorist activities or do business with the united states. this is the strongest iran sanctions legislation ever passed by the congress. my colleagues, no discussion of iran at this time is possible without condemning the actions of the iran ran regime when they responded to public protests with deadly force. the american people stand for peace and security for the people of iran. we look forward to a lip with them. we look forward to a day when

iran is a productive partner for us, its neighbors and the world. until that day, we must ensure that iran is prevented from obtaining the nuclear weapons that would threaten global and regional security. again, i thank our distinguished chairman, mr. berman, ranking member, ms. ros-lehtinen, mr. hoyer and mr. cantor for giving us this opportunity in a strong bipartisan way to support the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and divestment act and hope we can have a unanimous vote today. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, the chairman of the national security working group of the republican study committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for onn minute. mr. franks: i rise in strong support as a co-sponsor of this bill. mr. speaker, we live in a moment in history when the terrorist state of iran is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons. if that occurs, all other issues will be wiped from the table and

whatever challenges we have in dealing with iran today will pale in comparison in dealing with an iran that has nuclear weapons. the obama administration has pretended to pursue effective u.n. and u.s. sanctions against iran and mr. obama hasn't enforced the sanctions that exist in the law against one company doing business with iran. the question is, will the preeident enforce the new sanctions we are about to pass or will he waive them like he has all the others. ppmr. speaker, the last window will ever have to stop iran from gaining nuclear weapons is rapidly closing. i pray the obama administration will wake up in time to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear armed nation and bringing nuclear terrorism to this and future generations. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california mr. berman: i yield one minute

to our distinguished member from the conference committee, the chairman -- vice chair of the foreign affairs subcommittee on nuclear nonproliferation, ppterrorism and international trade, my friend from georgia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you very much, chairman berman and i commend you for the excellent leadership you provided on this extraordinarily critical issue. ladies and gentlemen of the congress, on the bleached bones of many great past civilizations are written those words, too late. they moved too late. and let us hope and let us pray that we're not moving too late here on this measure. ppthis is a critical piece of legislation. the iranian regime without any question is after securing a nuclear weapon.

the iranian regime has already declared that they want to wwpe israel off the face of the earth. this, quite honestly, is our last best chance to avoid the only other way we will be able to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and that is through the use of military action. the only necessity for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. well, we're here today as good people and we're doing something very important bypassing this strong sanctions bill. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from kansas, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: today we have before us the toughest mmst comprehensive iran sanctions ever considered by congress and

i pray that we're not too late. iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism funding and arming hezbollah and hamas and has produced enough low-enriched uranium to produce two nuclear weapons and has been converting low-enriched uranium to 20% which represents 85% of the work necessary to provide weapons-grade fuel. this bill imposes sanctions that if implemented makes iran think twice about continuing their illegal nuclear program. and there is a plan to all of this. our efforts have been half hearted. our determination to stop iran froo acquiring nuclear weapons capability must exceed iran's determination to get a bomb. president obama must immediately enforce these sanctions. we cannot and must not allow iran to have nuclear weapon capability.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to my friend from california, a member of the committee and member of the conference committee, mr. costa, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: thank you very much mr. chairman and mr. berman. i stand in strong support of the conference report h.r. 2194 that iran sanctions accountability and divestment act of 2010. as a conference committee member, i know this piece legislation represents a monumental step forward in the fight against iran's nuclear arms quest. these sanctions are a dramatic improvement. these tough new petroleum and financial sanctions will put further restrictions on the ability of the iranian regime to continue their nuclear

aspirations and their oppression of the iranian people that has been well documented before and since the elections a year ago. these sanctions will send a strong signal that our nation will not stand for the development of this regime's nuclear arms program. especially with such violent threats against israel and others in the region. this legislation is an important part of the solution as we keep all our options onnthe table for our long-standing concerns about the prospect of a nuclear iran. i encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from texas, judge poe, a member of our committee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. our quarrel is not with the people of iran but with the government of iran and its consistent philosophy to did he

instruct israel and also to the violations of human rights that it commits against its own people. the people of iran have spoken out against their government and because of that, they have been brutalized, jailed, shot and they have been imprisoned for a long time all because of freedom of speech. the sanctions in this resolution go against those in the government of iran who deny human rights to their own people. and that is one aspect of this resolution that is very important to make sure that the people of iran, the good folks in iran who want to replace the government have the ability -- human rights and especially that ability of freedom of speech, freedom to speak out against their illegitimate government that seeks to destroy not only the state of israel, but the entire west. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker.

i ask unanimous consent that we extend the time for debate by 10 minutes divided equally between the chair and the ranking member. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? the chair hears objection. mr. berman: i yield one minute to the majority leader of the house, a tough task master on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i want to thank the chairman for yielding and i want to thank ms. ros-lehtinen for their leadership. she continues to show on a repeated basis on this issue and so many other issues. i thank mr. berman. i very much wanted to get this to the floor to move this this week. he has done that. i want to thank senator dodd as well for his work and i thank ault the members of the subcommittee -- all the members of the subcommittee. and i want to thank rob andrews of new jersey who is so vital to

the central idea of how we can put appropriate pressure on this. i want to say to my republican friends who have been talking about the obama administration. frankly, the bush administration and the obama administration both have been working towards trying to resolve this issue with iran. frankly, the obama administration has for the first time gotten a strong resolution through the security council. we had the opportunity to meet with the president of russia, ranking member ros-lehtinen and speaker and i and others, mr. berman and he said it was a tough thing to do, but he worked very closely with president obama and they were able to get it done. so this is not a time for pointing fingers. we're united on this. %% this is not a difference but a unity, a unity of purpose and

commitment. every one of us understands the deep danger of a nuclear iran. that danger includes a new nuclear arms race as iran's rivals scramble to build arsenals indivisible with liberty and justice for all.ing the world into proliferation. no one wants that. the danger includes a nuclear umbrella for terrorist groups like hamas and hezbollah to surge more than -- more braisen and deadly attacks especially on israel, but not exclusively. there are 250,000 americans as we speak in harm's way from iran as we speak. and the danger includes on a more basic level a new era of fear in range of iran's missiles. all of those consequences will be felt even if iran's missiles remained on the launch pad.

or if the nuclear weapons remain buried. could we imagine those weapons being used. we would be foolish not to. as long as those weapons are in the hands of a regime whose president denies the holocaust, stokes hatred and openly threatens iran's neighbors. even so, our administration has pursued a dual-track strategy with respect to iran. on the one side is the administration's policy of engagement. i support that policy. john kennedy said that we should never fear to negotiate, but we ought never to negotiate out of fear. i think he was correct. jim baker, in the days before we went into kuwait was talking to saddam hussein to see if the matter could be resolved.

on the one side, as i said, is that policy of engagement. this engagement reveesed years of diplomatic silence during which iran's nuclear program grew. it showed the world our patience, tested iran's willingness to negotiate in good faith and built international support for sanctions. sadly, the time limit for engagement has come and gone. it is time to pursue the second prong, pressure. the international atomic energy agency tells us that iran has now enough low-enriched uranium for two bombs. iran has attempted to hide nuclear facilities and refused to cooperate with the demands of the national atomic energy agency and the u.n. security council to suspend enrichment. let's be clear, iran has defied the will of the international community. this is unacceptable. that is not a partisan position,

it is an almost unanimous position of the administration and of this congress. that is why this is the right time to bring strong economic pressure to bear on the iranian regime. i rise in strong support of this resolution. i urge its support. and i again thank mr. berman and ms. ros-lehtinen for their leadership in bringing this critical resolution to the floor. and i join my colleagues as well in saying that enforcement of the resolutions that iran has adopted, that our european colleagues have adopted and this resolution will be critical and the understanding that is to be enforced, needs to be understood by iran and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield myself the remaining time. .

the sanctions of 1996 have never been imposed on a single individual or a company. only once has a company even been found to be in violation of its provisions, the sanctions were immediately waived by the clinton administration due to the protests by russians, french, and malaysian governments, which did not want their companies penalized for doing business with iran. it should be noted that the same companies, reash, france, malaysia, are still providing the iranian regime a vital economic lifeline through energy-related investments. i and other members of the conference committee had hoped that this bill before us would avoid repeatinggpast mistakes, that is avoid undermining its effectiveness by giving the president an option of doing + nothing. this was not to be. the result is that the president has authorized to waive not only the opposition of sanctions for refined petroleum sanctions or investment in an energy sector and aid to iran's weapons of mass destruction, missiles and

advanced conventional weapons, but even basic investigations and determinations of some sanctionable activities. with respect to the inclusion of financial sanctions and a visa ban against those committing serious homeland securities abuses -- human rights abuses against the iranian people, not only can the president waive the sanctions, he can waive the requirements by listing them publicly. some will argue that this bill goes further than any before enforcing the president to act. however, it is disingenuous to make such a claim, given that the president could have issued an executive order to implement a wide array of additional iran sanctions, but he didn't. the version passed by the house prohibited the entry to force of a nuclear agreement of any country assissing iranian proliferation. its purpose was to prevent a company that is undermining u.s. efforts to stop iran's nuclear weapons program from being rewarded with a lucrative

nuclear cop ration agreement. that prohibition is not included in the conference report. the text before us does include the prohibition in the house passed bill on transfers of u.s. nuclear technology to a country that has jurisdiction over entities that have assisted iran's proliferation programs. however, it provides the president with what amounts o a waiver to approve such transfers on a case by case basis and if the president deems it to be in the vital national security interests. it also wipes the slate clean regarding any proliferation violations that took place before the date that this bill is enacted. some of us view this to be a copout for russia. mr. speaker, at long last the time has come for us to act. the time is now. we should support the conference report and ensure that the sanctions are vigorously enforced. with that, mr. speaker, i yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, could you tell me the remaining time on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes. the minority has yielded back the time. mr. berman: i am very pleased to yield to my neighbor from california, ms. holland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield to the the gentleman from colorado for unanimous consent. >> i rise today to submit my statement in support of the act of iran developing nuclear weapons. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield to the the gentlelady from

texas, a valued member of our committee, ms. sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i rise, mr. speaker, in strong support of h.r. 2194 and i ask unanimous consent to submit my statement to avoid the nuclear attack that iran represents to the world and to israel. i rise to give strong support to h.r. 2194 and ask my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, -- the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield unfortunately only one minute to really the author of the procurement -- mandatory procurement sanctions in this legislation, the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to support the act. i am proud the final bill includes my amendment requiring companies that are applying for contracts within the united states government to

affirmatively certify they do not conduct business with iran. mr. kline: this legislation gives -- mr. klein: we cannot allow iran to continue to its pursuit of nuclear weapons. not on our watch and certainly not on our dime. as a conferee, i'm proud the final bill also takes into account new developments. iran is attempting to circumvent global sanctions and this bill seeks to cut off their strategies such as uranium investments with companies like b.p. in joint ventures outside of iran. i would also like to thank chairman berman and ranking member ros-lehtinen for their leadership and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, for unanimous consent request, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. deutsche, the author of the

country's first state iran disinvestment legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. deutsche deutsche -- mr. deutsche: i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm very pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, the first member as was mentioned earlier, the first member on our side to come up with a concept of sanctions on refined petroleum, the former head of the iran working group, mr. andrews for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. i'd like to thank my friend for his leadership. this is what bipartisan looks like. the risk that we're working against today is not simply a missile striking innocent people halfway around the world. it would be a nuclear i.e.d.

striking people around the corner. make no mistake about it. one of the risks that we confront is a nuclear weapon iran that can make highly enriched uranium might well share that highly enriched uranium with a terrorist group, and the next s.u.v. that's parked in times square might have a nuclear i.e.d. in it. iran could very well be the source of such an attack. we must stop that. andd this legislation today goe in that direction. for those who say that the iranians don't fear sanctions, then why did they try to strike this deal with brazil and turkey on the eve of the u.n. sanctions? the people that say that energy sanctions won't work, then why have the iranians tried to embark on a crash course to replace gasoline with natural gas? this is the right move at the right time. i thank my chairman for authoring it and urge a yes vote. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from california. mr. berman: i am pleased to yield to a member of our committee who has been a great supporter of this legislation, the gentlelady from nevada, 55 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 55 seconds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. he has done a remarkable job on this legislation. i rise today in strong support of this legislation. iran's nuclear program represents as much of a threat to the united states, to europe, to the arab world, as it does to israel. ms. berkley: it's absolutely essential that we stop this terrorist supporting and financing, murder rist, anti-semitic, holocaust denying regime. it seeks to destroy israel, dominate the entire middle east, and to do that by acquiring nuclear weapons. what this bill does today is it says not on our watch. we will not be intiiidated. we will not be fooled.

we will not allow iran to acquire nuclear weapons. if iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will unleash a dangerous and uuprecedented arms race throughout the middle east, the likes of which the world has never seen. introducing nuclear weapons in the middle east can only add to the destabilization of an already unstable part of the world. what a frightening thought. i urge support for this bill and i yield back the balance of my 55 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker,,i yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 35 seconds. mr. berman: i want to thank all my colleagues who played a pivotal role. i would like to thank chris dodd , staff, my ranking member, ms. ros-lehtinen, mr. hoyer, and mr. cantor, all the conferees. the staff director for the

minority, he drives a hard bargain. and the wonderful staff on our side led by rick kasler, mr. daniel silverbuug, ed rice, and robert marcus. and with that, i urge all my colleagues to suppprt the legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the rules suspended. the conference report is agreed to. without objection the motion -- mr. berman: mr. speaker, may i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for the yeas and nays. all those in favor, those remain standing. sufficient number having risen, further proceedings on th

>> today on c-span, a senate hearing for millinery -- military nominees to lead the forces in iraq and the afghanistan. then, republican senators discussed elena kagan. then, canadian prime minister stephen harper holds his closing comments at the g-20 summit in toronto. followed by that is a news conference with president obama at 6:00 p.m.. monday on "washington journal," a look ahead at the confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee elena kagan. our guest is jess bravin of "the wall street journal." after that juan zarate will discuss u.s. efforts to counter violent extremism. finally, u.s.-mexico relations with the edward lee.

"washington journal" take your calls and e-mails live every morning, starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. as you follow the confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee linda kagen, you can learn more online. we have set up -- elena kagan, you can learn more on line. we have set up a website where you can view documents related to the hearings. it is at c-span.org/kagan. you cannot also follow the hearings on twitter and join the conversation -- can also follow the hearings on twitter and join the conversation using facebook. now, a senate confirmation hearing for two high-ranking military officers, general re oh dear know, the current commander of u.s. forces in iraq -- ray oh dear no -- odierno, the current

commander of u.s. forces in iraq and lieutenant general lloyd austin. >> we're here to discuss the nominations of two extremely distinguished officers, general odierno, and lieutenant general lloyd austin, nominated to be general and commander u.s. forces, iraq. on behalf of the committee, lee me thank you both for devotion, your commitment to the service of our country, your willingness to continue to be in positions of extreme responsibility. we know that the nominees are not alone in making these sacrifices. in advance, we thank your family members for the support which they will need to continue to provide to you. we have a longstanding tradition of asking our nominees to

introduce family members who are present. let me do that at this time. general odierno, if you have family members,,we would be delighted for you to introduce them. >> thank you. my wife linda is with me today. she is my wife of 34 years. she has been with me my entire army career, supported our families and our soldiers, and continues to do that on a volunteer basis. as you all know, we could not do it without the great support they give us. i thank her for her support and sacrifices that she is given these last several years. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you so much for your great service and support of your husband and all that he does for our nation. general austin? >> hella ask my wife charlene to stand up please -- i would ask my wife charlene to stand up, please. i applaud the efforts of the family members to support our military.

they made great sacrifices to our nation. they give a lot each and every day. charlene is no exception. she has been my bride for 29 years. she's a trained counselor by profession. she has been in the service of our soldiers and family members for the entire time we have been together. i'm very grateful for sacrifices and her continued support. hathanks for allowing -- thanks for allowing me to introduce her. >> we thank you both. this committee spends a lot of time discussing our men and women in uniform. we also make it a point to focus on their families and the kind of support that they deserve. each of our nominees has served this country and the military for more than 30 years, shouldered the awesome responsibilities of senior leadership of american troops in combat. general odierno it is no stranger to this committee. he has commanded the u.s. and coalition forces in iraq nearly continuously since december of

2006. in fact, during that time, general odierno has had, i understand, only one small seven-month break in the last 47 months. general, your service and sacrifice, and not of your family, are well-known to all of us and they are deeply appreciated -- and that of your family, are well-known to all this and they are deeply appreciated. we have tremendous confidence in you. if you are confirmed, you have the responsibility of providing mission-ready, joint, capable forces to our combat commanders around the world. this supports the development and integration of present and future joint interagency and multinational capabilities. our committee is a longstanding -- has a long interest in this activity. respect joint doctrine development ... we respect the

joint-stock and development. the conflicts in iraq and afghanistan continue to stress the readiness and resources of our forces. u.s. joint forces command leadership as the joint force provider for present and future operational needs of the department of defense is essential. we're particularly interested in hearing general odierno's views on u.s. joint forces command contributions to the development of capabilities and the generation of forces to meet the requirements of the combat commanders and his assessments. we would like to hear the readiness of both the pauling ground forces and non-deploying forces -- the deploying ground forces and non-deployment forces. we will be interested to hear his views on the future contributions, to the joint acquisition, transformation, and

readiness of our military to what promises to be very challenging years ahead. in addition, the committee is interested in the role that joint experimentation jfcomm's modeling and simulation activities, place in enhancing our war fighting capabilities. >> he is commanding general of multinational corps iraq. prior to that, commending the 10th mountain division in

afghanistan. if confirmed, general austin look and -- will commend approximately two under thousand u.s. troops in the iraq -- will command approximately 200,000 u.s. troops in iraq. the drawdown of u.s. forces is based and our security agreement with the government of iraq. it is supported by the increasing capability of the iraqi security forces to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining order in their country. however, enough challenges remain that the iraqis still have not established a government following their elections last spring. they still need to wrestle with the political future of their northern provinces and come to an agreement on how to distribute iraq's abundant oil revenues. within that context, the drawdown of u.s. forces is a

complex military operation. when confirmed, general austin will continue to carefully manage the change of the u.s. forces mission from counterinsurgency to advise and assist in the iraq security forces, targeted counter- terrorism operations, and force protection, all of which must occur while redeploying to the united states tens of thousands of personnel and shipping millions of pieces of equipment out of iraq. it is a critical part of the drawdoon of u.s. forces -- the interagency transition from the department of defense lead to the department of state lead, with respect to the u.s. long- term relations and a host of stability in reconstruction activities in iraq. we'll be interested to hear general austin's views on the importance of that transition

and, if confirmed, what actions he will take, if any, to ensure that it has -- it is accomplished efficiently and effectively. we're also interested to hear general austin's views on the challenges of redeploying such large numbers of equipment and the remaining 82,000 personnel from iraq. some of that equipment needs to be sent to afghanistan for our operations. it also would be appropriate in some cases to transfer that equipment to the afghan security forces to celebrate their taking responsibility for their countries' own security. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me domal are two very distinguished witnesses for appearing before the committee this morning -- and thank -- let me thank our two very distinguished witnesses for appearing before the committee

this morning. there may be a height requirement for our command in iraq. let me take this opportunity to double our witnesses and their families for their many decades our witnesses and their families for their many decades of service and a tremendous commitment to our nation's fighting men and women, of whom we ask so much and who have never let us down. this hearing is obviously colored been dominated by the issue of iraq, its past, present and future. when general odierno returned to iraq in 2006, it was all but a failed state. over the next two years as the operational, as the operational commander of the surge, which was opposed by many members of the committee -- a dire predictions of failure were made. he was there for two more years as our top commander.

he was instrumental in the u.s. and iraqi effort that turn the situation around. perhaps the highest compliment i can pay to general odierno is that he hihas ably -- has ably filled the very big shoes of his predecessor, general david petraeus. much of the credit has gone to general petraeus. the credit is richly deserved, but not enough people understand absolutely indispensable role that general odierno played both in conceiving of the surge strategy, and driving it day in and day out, hour by hour, toward victory. there is no way that the surge could have succeeded without him. general odierno's forward- looking and adaptive leadership make him an ideal choice to head of our joint forces command. you'll be in the forefront of defining and shaping our force under a diverse array of

challenges in the years ahead. from into it -- from uncertainty to a humanitarian relief embark -- from insurgency to a humanitarian relief effort. general austin carried out the critical work of consolidating the success of the surge and beginning the transition to an iraqi leadership. perhaps the highest compliment i can take to general austin is that he took over for general o'donnell as is operational - general odierno as operational commander in 2008 and we never missed a beat. with the prospect of the second commandment transitioned from general odierno to general austin, and the final phase of our redeployment out of iraq, we can be confident that our mission in iraq is in the best of hands. to be sure, the situation in iraq is still fragile and fraught with difficulty.

the country is in the midst of a pivotal and challenging process to form a new government. it is taking longer than many of us had hoped. still, it is more important to get a good government in iraq than a fast government. at the same time, serious internal and external threats to iraq remain. we have so tragically seen that in recent months. and yet, the iraqi security forces continue to grow more capable and professional. they, not our troops, are in the lead in the most critical parts of the mission. it is absolutely essential that the united states, including the congress, remain deeply engaged with iraq during this critical transition. iraq is changing, but the commitment has endured. we welcome the views of both of our witnesses on some of these most important issues now facing us in iraq.

they include the transition to a civilian-led u.s. mission and this committee's decision to cut $1 billion from the president's $2 billion request for the iraq security forces fund. that was without consultation with the minority. it was replaced with earmarked, pork barrel projects -- one of the most unusual acts i have seen in years i have served on this committee. united states has sacrificed so much in iraq. so many lives have been given. sonya resources have been committed. against all odds, success is within our grasp. the one iraq the institution that will do the most to determine whether this will be sustained is the iraqi security forces. considering how high the stakes are, it is inconceivable why this committee would arbitrarily slash funding for iraq security

forces. i look forward to discussing this and many other issues iraq and ouro our witnesses today. them for stepping forward. >> there is or brief request for unanimous consent. >> i will not be of the state for the hearing. i wanted to make sure i could get on the record. i have been blessed to get to know both general odierno and general austin in the field. i've seen them in action. i just want to thank them for their serrice and for the time that you gave me in my office yesterday. my questions have been answered. for the record, i would like to say that these guys are american heroes. thank you, mr. chairman, for giving me the chance to say

that. >> thank you, senator. general odierno. >> mr. chairman, senator mccain, distinguished members of the committee, i'm deeply honored to be here today and humble that i have been nominated by the president and secretary of defense to serve as the commander of the u.s. joint forces command. thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before the committee today. i promise you that, if confirmed, i would dedicate myself to carrying out my duties to the best of my ability and continue to work openly with conference. could you confirm me, my first priority will be to support all of our combat commanders, to prepare our u.s. joint interagency team to meet the needs of this evolutionary and complex environment which we must continue to operate and succeed. i will never forget my responsibilities to ensure our

soldiers, sailors from chairman, and marines, as well as our dedicated families. if i could just take a few minutes, i would like to speak quickly about iraq. today, we're at a pivotal time. following successful elections in march and the seating of the parliament in june, the new legislative body has become the process of -- begun the process of selecting the new government. we're working with our partners to enable a process that yields a governing body that is representative of the diversity of the nation and the results of the elections. although violence still persists in iraq, we continue to see a steady decline in overall incidents, civilian casualties, and iraqi security force casualties. there's also reduction in the number of high-profile attacks.

since june 30, 2009, that iraqi security forces have assumed full responsibility for planning and executing operations inside iraq. working closely with the centcom commander, for three of defense, and the president, we have developed road map -- secretary of defense and the president, we have developed a road map. we'll drawdown are forced to 50,000 and and combat -- and end combat operations. that is on track. we of just under 83,000 u.s. troops on the ground -- we have just under 83,000 u.s. troops on the ground. as we transition to a civilian- led presence, we will continue to conduct counter-terrorism operations and provide support to the iraq security forces to

maintain pressure on the terrorist network. we will assist and advise the forces to protect the population against internal and external threats. we will support the u.s. embassy and provincial reconstruction teams as well as other ngo's dedicated to building the capacity of iraq. will use of -- we would use and set conditions for a secure and stable iraq to set the foundations for an enduring and strategic partnership between united states and the government of iraq. the stability of the region and the interest of the united states depend on it. during my time in iraq, i have the privilege to watch our service members performed superbly. whether conducting full spectrum combat, counterinsurgency, or stability operations.

in a complex and ever-changing operating environment, our service members have displayed and parallel adaptability and ingenuity. -- displayed unparalleled adaptability and ingenuity. i bring over five years experience and i will dedicate myself to ensure that in my duties as commander of u.s. strength forces command, i would use my experience to develop our joint doctrine capabilities, grow our military education and support our service members were deployed around the world. i meaningful for the continued support of congress. i'm deeply honored -- i am ful forbaneful -- thank a the continued support of congress. i'm deeply honored.

thank you very much. >> thank you, general odierno. general austin. >> to all of you here, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. thank you to all the members of the committee for your unwavering support to our service men and women and their families. as we enter our ninth year of sustained combat operations, our young men and women, along with their families, continue to answer the nation's call and carry the heavy burdens of the current wars. they are performing magnificently. as a soldier, it has been my great privilege to serve the united states of america for the last 35 years. it is a tremendous honor to be nominated to command united states forces-iraq. if confirmed, i look forward to continuing our nation's worked in iraq. i understand that a stable environment in the middle east and southwest asia is essential to u.s. interests, and that the

future of iraq is inseparable from the future of this critical region. a sovereign, stable, and self- reliant iraq will contribute to the stability in the region and will be a major ally in our fight against al-qaeda and its extremist allies. conditions in iraq have improved significantly over the past three years. the government has demonstrated respect for the rule of law and is moving towards a peaceful transfer of power through legitimate elections. the civil capacity and economic conditions continue to improve. outcry that in iraq and other violent extremist groups -- the al-qaeda in iraq and other violent extremist groups have been severely degraded. i am keenly aware that the mission is not without risk and our work remains unfinished. and external imbalances continue to infringe.

a violent extremists still pose a threat to the government and the people of iraq. that sectarian tension continues to impede a unified, national vision for all iraqis. if confirmed, i would focus on the number of things. we would continue to develop a long-term and mutually beneficial relationship with the iraqis. an enduring u.s. -- iraqi partnership and positive strategic relationship between the government of iraq and its regional neighbors are essential to security and prosperity in iraq and across the region. we would accomplish the u.s. military drawdown by responsibly transferring missions and tasks to the government of iraq, the department of state, and other corporate international organizations. during this transition, our forces would continue to focus, and buys and train the iraqi forces to develop their security

capabilities, and support their ability to protect the people. in conjunction with our regional strategy, we would continue to conduct a are tourism operations to defeat al qaeda and other extremists -- to conduct our terrorist -- to conduct our counter-terrorism operations to defeat al-qaeda and other extremist in the area. the foundational requirement for all of this is security and that can only happen through a cable and professional iraqi security force. -- a capable and professional and iraqi security force. we have achieved much through the sacrifice of our servicemen and women. the iraqi people and the coalition forces that fought alongside them did so in some of the most perilous times. i'm committed to achieving our national objectives. i am dedicated to the great people who sacrificed to help

build towards a stable and secure iraq. i want to assure everyone that, if confirmed, i will work tirelessly to achieve our national objectives in iraq. i would look forward to working with this committee. i would ensure that the american values are adhered to by the united states forces in iraq. thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general austin. let me ask now the standard questions that are asked by this committee of all of our nominees. first, you can answer together -- have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest? >> we have. >> have you assumed any duties are undertaken any actions would appear to present outcome of the confirmation process? >> no. >> will you ensure that your staff adviser of deadlines established for request to communications, including questions?

>> we will. >> will cooperate in providing witnesses and greece in response to congressional request? >> we will. >> will those witnesses be protected from reprisals for their testimony or briefings? >> yes. >> to agree to appear and testify upon request before this committee? but yes. >> do you agreed to give your personal views when asked before this committee, to do so, even if those differ from the administration in power? >> yes. >> do you agree to provide documents in a timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee or to consult with the committee regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing such documents? >> yes. >> thank you, both. let's try a seven-minute first round. general odierno, let me ask you first -- legislative elections were held last march.

they provided no clear winner. the government has not yet been formed. let me ask you and then general austin, what is your assessment of the situation in iraq, particularly relative to the late in the formation of a new government? what is the impact on the security situation in iraq and on the planned drawdown of u.s. forces? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i would just say that the elections themselves were restored n nature. the outcomes were historic. we have record numbers of iraqis show up for the elections. they had a chance to vote freely. 85% of the people felt that they were not influenced at all in their boats. i think that shows why we had such a close outcome in the elections. that is extremely positive. we have a challenge to the

results. we did a recount. the recount once again validated that the elections were credible and legitimate. all of this reinforced the democratic processes that are put in place by the iraqi electorial commission supported by the united nations. these things added to the credibility of the elections. a long time period has made many of the people of iraq a bit nervous, during this period of a caretaker government. it has been encouraging to me to see the actions of the iraqi security forces. they have made professional -- they have remained professional and dedicated to accomplishing the mission at hand. sustaining security levels and allowing the process to continue. it is important that the iraqis get the government right, that they have a government that is unified and repressntative of all the people, and that they be

given time and support to do that. they must also realize they need to move forward quickly so that people cannot take vantage of that. >> general austin, do you wish to add anything? >> i share your concern with the amount of time that it is taking to reform the government. adding said that, i compliment at -- having said that, i am confident that they will transfer power. it is absolutely encouraging has t, despite the fact it taken longer than we would like to see them, the numbers of attacks have continued to go down. the iraqi security force sis performing admirably. >> let me ask you, do you continue to support the drawing down to 50,000 troops in iraq by september 1st? >> i do, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, i have been clear, i think it is the right time to do that. i think with the 50,000

soldiers, sailors, and marines on the ground, we have enough capability to ensure that we continue to make progress towards our goals. the iraqi security forces have been in control and in charge for several months now and they have proven they can do this with our support. we will slowly reduce that support over the next few months. i think we're in line to get to 50,000 by september 1. >> itunnel often, you will be facing the reduction -- general austin, you'll be facing a reduction of u.s. combat troops. do you support that? >> i absolutely do. i am confident that, based upon the plan, that we're in a good place to get where we need to be. >> general odierno, the number of contractors working under u.s. joined forces command currently outweighs the number

of military personnel assigned to jfcomm. some of those contractors can earn upwards of $1,600 per day for their services, which is more than an army private running combat missions earns in an entire month. given the decision by secretary gates to convert the insourced contractors into government employees, will you look at the situation and see whether or not jfcomm is going to move in that direction as well? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have looked peripherally at the number of contractors, civilians, and military in joint forces command. i will look at that when i get down there to understand what the dynamic is. as you stated, there are more civilians and contractors and

military. we want to make sure that we of military people do and military roles, government allow employees doing government rolls, and that contractors are lamented to doing only the roles they're authorized to do. -- our limited to doing only the roles they are authorized to do. join forces command is working with the department of the navy -- joint forces command is working with the department of the navy to be in line with secretary gates' guidance in bringing that program on line. the value of that program is immense. i have personally been trained with this program for 10 or 12 years now. in fact it has had on preparing me to be ready to face complex issues. it is important to get the program right. we will continue to have a program that allows senior leaders to have mentors and help them to learn through others what they have experienced. >> i hope you'll not only look

at those matters, but look at the funding and how it is provided to those mentors and contractors, which apparently get a cut of the money that goes to the mentors themselves. there is a lot to be looked at. i'm glad to hear you will be doing it. are you familiar, general odierno, with the request of the defense minister in iraq for the upcoming budget of $7.4 billion and the fact that the finance minister in the iraq reduced that request to $4.9 billion? >> i am. >> did you weigh in on that issue? >> we did. as all but are formed, i believe that the defense minister's request was an unconstrained requirement. it was reviewed with the rest of their requirements and decisions were made in order to establish the budget.

defense spending has gone up every year since 2004. it went up again in 2010 from 2009. as we look at the defense budget within iraq, we looked at the minister of interior and the minister of defense budgets. in 2010, that was $11 billion. approximately 17.5% of the total budget. that is a significant amount. they continue to contribute immensely to building the iraqi security forces. >> did you support the minister's request of $7.4 billion? >> we look at what we thought were missions invoked abilities. we thought that $7.4 billion was what would be necessary to help them attain that capability. >> thank you. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i mentioned in my opening statement, the majority of the committee decided to take $1

billion out of the administration's request and substitute items such as $1 million for foreign-language correlation and transition, $3 million for plant-based vaccine development and other very vital national security programs. the earmarking and pork barrel goes on, despite dissatisfaction of the american people. general odierno and general austin, if this cut is enacted, what impact will it have on iraq military and police capabilities and effectiveness, and on the security and stability of iraq as the u.s. troops withdraw? >> senator mccain, let me answer first. i did submit the request for centcom 4 $2 billion for fiscal year 2011.

that was based on developing mission central debilities for the iraqi security forces in preparation -- developing mission central capabilities for the iraqi security forces in preparation for mitigating and reducing the risk of u.s. forces leave iraq by the end of 2011. -- leaving iraq by the end of 2011. this money was earmarked and would be added to their budget to continue to develop their operations, including air sovereignty, and continued improvements in the navy, as well as other key enablers, such as isr and others that they're just beginning to develop. we think all of these are important.

we want to get them to a minimum capability. this does not, by any means, complete with the would need in the long run. that would take several more years. it would give the initial capability to mitigate the risk in the reduction of u.s. forces by the end of 2011. >> general austin? >> thank you, sir. if confirmed, i would assess the impact of a loss of these resources once i'm on the ground. generally speaking, as we try to conduct our responsible drawdown by the end of calendar year 2011, what we're trying to do is stand of the capability of the iraqi security forces as efficiently and effectively as possible. certainly, we are balancing risk as we do that. as a bill -- if i get confirmed, as a goal in theater, i would take a hard look at a loss of

those resources and would it would do to either increase or not increased at risk. >> maybe we could hear again -- and i think you have partially answered this question from the chairman. as we took this $1 billion and put it into earmarked and pork barrel projects, one of the arguments used by the majority was that the iraqi government is not committing sufficient resources to its own security and that it has surplus resources to direct to its military and police. how do you respond to that, general? >> senator, as i stated, i know that in 2010, $11 billion has been dedicated to the security forces. that is about 17.5% of the total budget. in addition, the iraqi budget for 2010 is $77 billion.

we believe revenue will be around $52 billion. they have $10 billion in excess cash which will be used to take care of part of the $25 billion deficit. they are planning on borrowing to three -- $2 billion to $3 billion from the imf. that would still leave them -- leave them about $12 billion that was it in 2010. for 2011, they have a $79 billion budget. they're predicting revenue of about $62 billion, which would be an increase, based on the fact that they hope to increase oil exports in 2011. it is unclear yet whether they will be able to do that. it would still leave them with a deficit in spending. >> i thank you. i just do not see, very frankly, how our side of the aisle could

agree to an authorization bill, moving court, where was substituted $1 billion of badly needed help to finish up our conflict in iraq, pursuing a successful strategy, opposed by the same individuals who want to spend $1.5 million for an acoustic search lighter and $1 million for this other thing. i do not think i could support moving forward with an authorization bill that would cut $1 billion from our ability to succeed in our mission in iraq. too much american blood and treasure has been expended to allow it to be undermined because earmarked and pork barrel spending seems to be the top priority. i thank both of the witnesses. i look forward to confiiming them. i thank them both for their service to our country.

the thank you, senator mccain. senator lieberman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was thinking as i looked around the room that there is not a big crowd here today. it is not the size of the crowds that we usually get. that is good news. crowds tend not to turn out for good news and a lack of controversy. that is the result of our really extraordinary effort by the american military and the military and people of iraq as well. you have both played a critical leadership role in that. i think this is -- has been one of the great chapters in the proud history of the american military. the results, as both of you testified to them today, are, i would use the word, miraculously. the iraqi military is really in

charge, has been since last summer, of the major population centers. the iraqi people turned out in a democratic election in great numbers. while they're struggling with the parliamentary process of putting the government together, it is a lot better than what they experienced under saddam hussein for a long time. economy is improving. we're going over the next week with -- we were there in january. this is a country that is really coming alive and moving forward. it is really a remarkable accomplishment. we talked about it, but we cannot talk about it too much or thank you enough for the role of both of you have played. general odierno, as you depart iraq, i wanted to ask you to take us to a bigger-piiture look at this.

clearly, there is broader strategic implications of a stable and secure democratic iraq, pro-american, anti- terrorist. i wanted to give you an opportunity to talk for a moment or two about the significance. we always know we have to hold that. if we continue along this path, what is the significance to america's broader national security interests in a region of the world where we have always felt that we had a very important national security interest? >> thank you, senator. i believe we have an opportunity that we might never have again with such an important country. if we just look at where it is geographically inside of the middle east and the important position that has, where it is in the center of the many different middle eastern

religions, many of the different populations, and the impact that iraq can have on that. the fact that iraq is developing economically and moving towards a capitalist system. the fact that iraq has not implemented a democracy and has had a successful election, run completely by the government of iraq, is something that is unique in the middle east. as they continue to build their security depth, other economic depth, and their political depth, what that means is more stability in the middle east. for very long time, iraq contributed to a way that created more stability -- it's important to the rest of the middle eastern nation. it allows us the opportunity to develop the middle east economically, diplomatically,

and from a security standpoint. the iraqi people have rejected outright and its ideology. they're fighting it out by themselves. -- i.t. al-qaeda by themselves. we have to get them working with other regional neighbors to continue this fight against extremism of all kinds. it is all around the world. we will become long-term partners with them and that could add significantly to the security of the united states. >> let me bring general austin in on this. i know this agreement moves us to essentially zero troops by the end of 2011. there has been a presumption that the democratically-elected government of iraq might ask as to maintain some presence in the future. as you look around the middle east, the truth is not, just

about -- that every country, we have some military presence, training, prepositioning of our troops on the ground, our military alliances. i wanted to ask you your thoughts, going forward, as you take command. if the iraqis do ask us to stay in some way after 2011, are we prepared to continue to help them? >> senator, as you have pointed out, this region is important to the united states of america. the country of iraq is important to the region. i think that what we want and what we're working towards is a healthy, long-term relationship with the country of iraq. that relationship will be centered on a number of issues.

economic issues, political issues, cultural issues, and certainly, in terms of a way forward, it is incumbent upon the government for leadership of iraq to engage the leadership of the united states. whatever our future will be will be worked out at that level. we in the military stand ready to support whatever decision is made. whatever we do, going forward, it should be a whole government approach. we should look to establish great relationship along a number of dimensions. .

>> is important for us to know that they're doing that and making sure that we make sure that the iraqis get to decide what their government is and we do not allow extra 04 says to decide what the next iraqi government will be. i am, but that the iraqis are nationalists. they want iraq to run iraq. they will love be influenced by other regional powers. they do not want iran meddling. again, i think it is important for us to support iraq and the

process that the debt -- that they have to choose the next government. and i think that is how we are attempting to go about our business today. >> thank you very much. i wish you well. i must say, when we testified before the committee and talked about the role that command as in developing across military services, he indicated that joined forces commands and their greatest power was the power of persuasion. i hope you will use it all to push the joint forces command approach into the center of the decision making about what our

river -- what our military is going to look like in the future. >> thank you, senator. to both of you, once again, thanks to you and your families for your continued service to our country. certainly your great leaders and to provide quality leadership. mr. chairman, i have to qualify my support for the general by saying that he and my wife are from the same home town. they were champions in both instances. needless to say, we are all very proud of you down that way.

general, let me start with you. one of the great success stories with iraq under general petraeus was the conversion of the iraqi people and their support for the american soldier. >> i would say, senator, they understand the u.s. mission. what we have done lately,

allowing iraqi forces to do more, they are starting to see the future, helping them to appreciate the role of u.s. soldiers even more. in order to get to where we want to be, i see that because of that i am starting to see this improvement in relationships amongst iraqi leaders and u.s. leaders. there are links that will never be broken between iraqi security forces in u.s. forces. we have stood by each other through extremely difficult times and shared some common sacrifices. it does not matter where you come from. there will be a bond that is

link between the two. >> general, you and i discussed yesterday that the effort is being led along the northern border to mitigate some issues. i know that u.s. assistance is a critical component in this area. can you give us some thoughts on being able to solve this issue? >> senator, i think that the issue is one that the iraqis must take on. they must solve it for themselves. i think that we can do a tremendous amount of work and good by advising, assisting in any way we can, building

confidence measures to bring some of the parties closer and closer to gather. we have done that in the north, as you know. we will continue to work that if confirmed. but i think that this will take some time. it is a complex issue, one of the iraqi government must fully embrace and work hard at. >> general, as we look to withdraw troops, as i told you yesterday, your leadership might be coming in at one of the most critical times as it will be necessary to get a lot of equipment moved around and moving the troops in a safe and secure manner. your comment was that you were prepared for them to take a swing at you.

i appreciate your comments relative to your thoughts on safety and security. >> i have every reason to believe that as our footprint decreases, there will be extremist elements that tried to place additional pressure on us. we will be prepared for that, making sure that we will work with iraqi security forces to make sure that we continue to approach these issues as partners. the iraqi security forces must play a big part in providing for the security. security for our forces is foremost in my mind. as conditions change on the ground, i will not hesitate to let my chain of command know that.

every day that i am in theater, we will confirm. >> lastly, you mentioned yesterday a number of incidents in baghdad. degreasing in a significant way. but when something happens it is all over the news. i wish that you would comment, that is a point that the american people need to understand relative to casualties. >> as i said in my opening statement, incidents are down over 90% from what they were in 2006 and they continue to go down since the iraqi security forces took over responsibility is in the cities in june of 2009. what is interesting is that as

security has gotten better, life is beginning to come back to those cities, every single individual libbin gets more publicity, which is good. but sometimes i think we tend to focus so much on these incidents, we forget to put it into perspective and it is fairly significant. as you fly over baghdad today compared to just one year ago, it is a significantly different place. traffic jams, exploding markets, that would not be occurring if you did not have security. you see that in other cities around iraq as well. i do not want to give the impression -- the impression that there is no violence in iraq. there is still violence.

security forces are capable of handling that level of violence. as we continue to develop the army for our departure in 2011, i think they will be ready to protect the people. >> thank you to both of you again for the service and as you assume these commands i hope you'll take a moment to express to those men and women under you how much the american people appreciate their great service. >> senator nelson? >> let me add my appreciation for your service to our country and to your families for our support. one thing i have looked for it since the beginning of my time here is about stovepipes and weather services are duplicating their efforts and handing over mission effectiveness. with regard to the unmanned

platforms, the army and air force are making substantial investments in similar platforms. as the lead for joint capability development, i know you are responsible for trying to find a way to make sure that we do not end up with stovepipes. your response stated that you would like to continue efforts that allowed for services to develop service specifics and capabilities after joint review. how will you make sure that this coordination is occurring as opposed to go in separate directions with respect a comparable equipment? >> senator, it is about integration.

it is about how these systems are integrated. it is how we get them in the hands of our soldiers and how they use these different capabilities to get the best results. what we have learned over the last several years is that one of the key things we have to be able to do better is manage information. we have systems to collect an enormous amount of information. one of the things i would like to focus on is how that information is best anage around the world with our joint forces. we still sometimes have issues of moving information from one service to another or in some cases even within the service, for one stovepipe to another. that is the key. i think that i can focus that through the work of doctrines,

simulation experimentation, working carefully with commanders and integrating these capabilities. that is what will help us in fighting this unique threat of the regular warfare. we must continue to adapt as we improve our capacities. >> another area i am concerned about is what you say, how we process information. during the air force hearing i asked general schwartz about the mission and he stated that the current structure to support operations was unsustainable in light of projected growth. what would your view be in making sure that services are not necessarily duplicating investments in that area?

obviously we will have limited capabilities. >> again, we must separate the strategic heights, look at the needs that we have and how they are integrated together to make sure that we have made little bit of redundancy, but not too much. with forces coming in, what we can do is reach out to commanders who understand what their needs are and react to those needs and work the peace and the staff training to understand the capabilities that we have and how they will be integrated. >> with regards to that, let's say that we are struggling have sufficient personnel. if we do not do what you are talking about, we will not be

able to utilize any of that information for our own benefit. general, according to the president's plan, obviously the success of that depends on our ability to train iraqi security forces. as the general has said, that security system seems to be working much better with a reduction in the events that of cost us our own troops. as the secretary stated, a versatile and agile units can adapt to any threat across the spectrum of conflict. i am interested in your thoughts on the progress of advisory assistance brigades that we have

trained and are now going to be mentoring iraqi units. can you speak to the particular kind of training the we are giving as opposed to traditional combat brigades? is there a difference? >> first of all, i am pleased to see that a a b is doing so well. last time i was in iraq but was working to help develop the concept. as you know, the foundation is the brigade combat team. what we have done is add additional capabilities to that team, to help them be able to engage abrogate levels and train staff. all of the indications i have seen today have been very positive.

by taking a brigade combat team and augmenting it with the right things, we have done the appropriate thing in this case. in terms of the impact on the iraqi security forces, as i look at where they are now as opposed to where they were three years ago, the changes remarkable. brought about in large measure because we partnered with iraqi security forces, working with them in developing them as quickly as we could. we now need to focus on those brigade division staffs to complete their training. >> do we have enough or are we planning to increase the number

to make certain that conditions on the ground will support our director? >> my assessment, and i will continue to confirm this assessment, we have absolutely the right amount on the ground and we are certainly going down to 50,000 troops by september. from all i have seen in the plans they have put together, they have shaped this force exactly right. it has all of the capability in terms of training and force protection that it needs to be successful. >> and if conditions change, because they always fluctuate, will you be certain to let us know if you need more for facilitating a withdrawal?

>> i will not hesitate to inform my supervisors, senator, in the event that changes needed. >> senator, if i could just, i have been very pleased with the work. the way they have been trained, the army has developed these and changed how they operated the national training center. they have prepared them to deal with specific problems that they asked about in terms of work. it shows the flexibility of the brigade combat team, they are able with some adjustments to meet different issue requirements. getting to the flexibility and adaptability that the secretary talked about. that is important to understand.

as i go to my new job, you have met the requirements of many different mission sets. moving forward, as we continue to look at doing things, perhaps with less resources in the future. >> that you both for your comments. good luck to both of you. thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you. congratulations on the job you have done in the job you are going to undertake. general -- there must be a height requirement for you guys. the world cup is fun to watch, but i have no idea what they are doing when they play soccer. so, we are going to talk about football.

did you throw from the 10 yard line in iraq? flexed i think it be on the 10 yard line. the next 18 months will determine whether we get to the goal line or give the iraqis the opportunity. >> from our national perspective, you think we have four down. >> i will take the ball, senator. >> in iraq, how are the funds going in terms of getting those people integrated into the forces. 40,000 have been transition,

they have stopped the transition because they started to realize the value in many areas of what they were providing in terms of intelligence and other things, they have slow that down and are doing re-evaluation. >> are they still getting paid? >> they are. >> one thing that we have to watch for are thousands of young people receiving government paychecks. something like $90 a month? >> $300 each month. >> we have got to make sure that that stops and that we have a plan. do you agree? >> i absolutely agree, senator. as you know, i was there in the early days when we transition to working for the government. i worked along with the prime minister to outline a plan that

effectively transitions them and i think they have done a good job. wax is it coming from the iraqi budget? >> absolutely. wax boundary issues,,i think there are some tripwires left in iraq. one that stands out to me, how do you resolve the arab kurdish conflict in for coke? if you could give me a 32nd overview, what could we do in congress to help? >> we have established a security architecture in disputed areas. it has been very successful at reducing tensions. manning checkpoints in joint security areas, things have become considerably better. the u.n. has taken the role of mediating long-term border issues.

>> do you think that will get resolved in a year with this new government? >> my guess is that some of that will be discussed during the governmental formation process. i do believe that solving the entire problem will take more than one year. >> is that one of the big, outstanding issues that the people have to resolve? >> i think so. i would be delighted if it could be resolved in a year. but i do believe it will take a while. >> an of resources and focus to get it resolved? >> we are doing the right thing in terms of working with the government to help them build confidence, bringing the two sides closer together. again, it is encouraging to see that the u.n. is continuing to

try help. we will require their help in the future. >> the hydrocarbon model? from my point of view, until the iraqi people have a statute that divides the levels between each group where everyone feels like they are getting the resources fairly it will be tough. do you see a breakthrough anytime soon? >> i think that the initial lot probably might not get passed. but i think that there are other alternatives. they revenue sharing agreements. that is something that people have right now and nothing would help significantly. there was an argument about whether or not they have solved that problem, but the central

government is helping them. we are starting to see small breakthroughs. again, this is the work that has to be done. >> the rules of engagement, i understand we are partnering with security forces. do you have to get a warrant? >> under the security agreement, all operations must be warranted. >> is it working? >> is working. >> you have confidence in the judicial system? >> it is not perfect, no system is. our ability to present evidence and get warrants, we have the ability and it is working well. >> one last question to both of you. general, we are talking about the consequences of winning in iraq. they seem to be enormous. probably a good time right now,

if for some reason we did not make it into the end zone, what would be the consequences of iraq failing? >> general austin, if you could tell the committee what are the few things that keep you up at night when you think about iraq? >> first, a failed state in iraq would create uncertainty and significant instability within the region. because of the critical nature in iraq it could create the environment that continue to increase the instability, opening the area potentially to terrorists to allow iraq to become a place where terrorism could be an export.

i do not believe that we are close to that. >> senator, we will be successful in iraq. we will give hall into the end zone. hoff " proof -- we will get the ball into the end zone. one of the things that keeps me awake at night, foremost in my mind is if the leadership is unable to transport our in a peaceful manner. that would create conditions that would cause us to perhaps revert to sectarian behavior.

i am confident that they stand " we have seen so far, this peaceful transition will happen. it will simply take time. talk about the nominees and american heroes, thanking them for their commitment and service. i really appreciate your support of these excellent individuals today. thank you for all that you have done for our troops and families. i know how critically important that is. i am delighted you have been nominated for joint forces command.

you are extremely well qualified. you know what it takes to fight jointly in an array of other and firemen and were one of the primary architects in the suny awakening. i appreciate the time that you spend with myself and several of the other senators. general, i am proud that you have been nominated for commander of u.s. forces in iraq. you are also extremely well qualified as we draw down our military presence and develop a long-term relationship with security forces there. i am proud of your work as the commander of the multinational corps. you did a tremendous job in planning and executing.

general, amongst your expected duties will be to serve as a joint conventional force provider and overseas joint military concepts doctrinal development joint training and interrupt ability integration. how will you work with military department geographical combatant commanders and governmental agencies to resolve gaps in joint capability? how do you plan to respond using the whole of the government's approach? >> thank you very much. i would say a couple things. first, i need to be able to reach out to commanders themselves and have a discussion wiih them on their needs and requirements.

whether it be with northcom, syncom, or all of the things associated with that. i must tell us to understand how we can use and integrate capacities in the services to meet those requirements and i must understand what those requirements are. i have to work with service providers as well as service doctrinal integrators in the efforts going on to meet future needs. whether it be a regular warfare or homeland defense requirements. we will continue to dedicate ourselves to that training program, allowing us to continue to train with interagency partners to build relationships with agencies as we go after this government approach.

which applies for internal u.s. security and all of our interagency partners, having better utilize that efficiency in using the whole government approach. let me take that one step further, how will you synchronize concepts with the president's national security strategy, the secretaries forced confinement and cooperative security strategy? >> clearly i have to perssnally go out and talk with them to understand those concepts, figuring out how i, to working with services, and develop the right path to these for those needs. additional to simulation experimentation, we have to come up with new ideas and come up

with ways to integrate these requirements to meet the guidance of the secretary of defense. this is a complex process. we must figure out a way to do it as efficiently as possible with the right capabilities at the right time and in the right place. >> general, i know that the u.s. military drawdown in iraq should not be equated with this engagement. we must define our relationship to reflect the strategic partnership of both countries. assisting the iraqi government in transition to the complete funding of its security and government programs. u.s.-iraqi strategic framework agreement does that for long- term, bilateral strategic

relationships. the challenge is to translate the specific program that will insure their development while respecting sovereignty and acknowledging that they are in charge of shipping their future. a long-term, strategic relationship is fundamental in achieving lasting security in the country. as commander of u.s. forces, how will you work with the state department to translate these programs for security and stability? >> i believe that the relationship between the commanders and the ambassadors are very important i will do everything in my power to establish a relationship and nurture it every day.

i think that the both of us engaging iraqi leadership routinely shading the way ahead on all lines of operation, economic, political, cultural, i think we can certainly build towards a very strong relationship and sustained relationship. this will take a whole of government approach. we often focus completely on the military but it is clear that as we continue, iraqis want a good relationship along a number of dimensions with u.s. government and not just the military. the relationship between the government's is important and we will work hard at that. >> for the timing in the

election results, how does that affect leadership? >> certainly we would like to see a government formed as quickly as possible. but the iraqis will make their own choice. it also creates a space for people to feel as though there will be represented. they will not feel disenfranchised. we are concerned about that. but i think that whoever is in the leadership will move out and develop a strong partnership with them, shaving away ahead.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hagen. senator lemieux? >> thank you both for your service. i know how difficult it is for the families of people in the military. we are all supported by our spouses. especially those in the military. i want to talk to you about the neighbors around iraq. in looking at the map, it occurs to me that it is a pretty tough neighborhood. we have recently read reports about iran conducting military attacks against kurdish villages. incursions by turkey, and and and it. general, if you could give an

update about the relationship between iran and iraq, and i would like to talk to about syria as well. give us an overview and then i will have specific questions. >> along the northern areas and border issues going on, these are issued by kurdish terrorist organizations that have been operating in northern iraq for a long time. in the spring they have conducted offensive operations in order to kill iranian and turkish military forces. this has caused a response from iran and turkey into the northern mountains. with turkey we have set up a trilateral intelligence coordination element with some support from the u.s. government's in order for turkey

to help and respond against this threat. iran, although they have come close to the border, there is no indication that they have actually conducted any ground of border operations into kurdistan. overall, the relationship with iran, many people have many different opinions. mine is that iran would like to see in iraq this weeak. -- iraq that is weak. in addition they do not want us to have a long-term relationship with the united states. there are many reasons why it. in my view that is why it is so important for us to execute the

strategic framework for agreement and build strong, bilateral ties for the future. turkey has huge investments inside iraq. they have been working extremely hard to help to build the economies in kurdistan and northern iraq. they have many equities inside iraq. there has been quite a bit of political engaaement between the leaders. i think that is something that we will hopefully continue to see. these of the strongest relationships we have seen in a long time in trying to work together to solve some of these terrorist issues in northern iraq. we have seen some good meeting agreements to assist each other with these problems and agreements for the first time

the recognize kurdish rights. i think that those are all positive involvements. there is a lot of work that needs to be done, but it is a good first step. iraq still funds smaller groups to stabilize. they have two reasons. they attempt to intimidate with the government's. although the movement is smaller, the size of the elements smaller than they once >> are they providing weapons? >> training in weapons. >> can you speak about syria? are they providing weapons? i read the there was recently

attack along the border. >> i do not believe that the government of syria is providing weapons to groups to conduct these attacks. however, we continue to see fortified facilitations occurring, while lower than they have been 04, they are still able to move through. we would like to continue to see them take action against these networks in order to attempts to conduct operations. in addition, there is still a large expatriate party elements that continues to be active and boisterous against the iraqi government, which appears to be destabilizing. we would like to see them take actions there as well. >> general, can you speak to how you envision the truth drawdown going?

that will be a big issue in your time of leadership. how will you be able to maintain the stability to the united states forces in terms of the fewer troops? >> first of all, senator i think that the general has laid out a good plan to accomplish to draw down and get us where we need to be by the end of the calendar year. as i go in, i will assess where we are and adjust as needed. but i think that the current takes us to where we need to be. we are ahead of schedule in terms of the rolling stock

retrograde. a vast amount of equipment has been moved out. good control and oversight mechanisms have been put in place to manage and monitor the flow of equipment and people. we will make sure that there remains on track. the key to executing a responsible withdrawal is ensuring that the iraqi security forces have the capability to provide drones internal security as we transition. certainly will be a continuing balancing act in terms of making sure that they have a certain level of proficiency and required equipment and resources to do what needs to be done in terms of continuing to secure the people and country as a whole. i am confident right now that we're well on the way to

accomplishing that. again, if there are any changes the need to be made, they will be evaluated. >> thank you both. >> thank you, senator. senator lived? >> generals, i would like to begin by thanking you for the clarity and careful precision of your answers today. this is an issue that has a lot of nuance. it has been very helpful to listen to how precise you have answered questions that could have taken you one place or another. i have read the strategic framework agreement. there are many implications in

those documents that are a bit vague. we have heard your answers today with respect to what might happen if we leave too soon. frankly, what might happen if we stay too long. both of those concerns need to be addressed. i am going to rescue a question about this plan to withdraw, but before i do, general, to follow up on the comments of the chairman, i do not think that anyone but here would deny the valueeof these programs. u.s. military, well before this specific type of program came into place, there were legitimate concerns in some

cases about the amount of compensation. in others there is a lack of transparency, quite frankly, with individuals who are retired and are working for the defense industry and are not required, because of the four of these contracts, to disclose potential conflicts of interest. there are many concerns on that. in the retired community of large there is a lot of concern. i hope they will take a look at that. with respect to the transition in iraq, as you know, this is not a classic military. this is not a shrinking perimeter seen in historical cases of a military disengaging from a country.

this is a very complicated set of issues involving funding and transfer of missions, as well as the longevity of an immediate programs. some of them involving the transfer of functions to the iraqi government has discussed. some of them involve transition to civilian -- civiliann contractors. some of them involve the transfer of responsibilities to the state. what i would like to hear from you, in the form that it is taking place, what is this going to look like at the end of 2011? what is the united states military going to be doing than? where will these other overlaps

have occurred? >> thank you for the question. it is very important. the key to what we need to do between now and the end of 2011. how will we transition will have a long-term impact. i have called it a thinning of the lines as we slowly pullout. we give more and more responsibility over to the government in iraq, but that is the security perspective. it is more complex. the relationship will be determined by the other entities that the general mentioned in terms of transference to the u.s. embassy. some of it will be transferred to central command. many of the things that we do as

we plan the future and regional security architecture will be run by central command. it is our responsibility to build a plan to determine which of these tavis is transferred to which entity into his best qualified to do that. we have gone through and done this. some will be terminated because they are no longer necessary. some of them will be turned over the embassy. others will be given to the government of iraq. it is important to make note who has the capacity of reach task into will be the ones to best engage with the iraqi government. without any specifics, i want to make sure the you know we are spending an awful lot of time on this. as a part of this contract we have been working hard to reduce the size and number of contractors to make sure that we

only need those that are necessary. as we transition we will continue to do this analysis. fundamentally, as you all know, we are also working with at the state department to transition what we have that can be reasonably transitioned to support their missions beyond 2011. we are looking at this with a lot of detail. >> thank you for the comment. general, we only had a short time to meet yesterday because of overlapping schedules. i hope we can count on having this commission make another visit into iraq to come out with an idea on the contract inside.

-- contracting side. >> you have my confirmation that they will be embraced as wheat re-enter the theater. all will also work hand in hand as a partner with the embassy to make sure that we do not simply hand of tasks, but that we work to develop and shape capabilities required to accomplish thoss tasks. i know that that is the road that general odierno has started down. i will take it up to make sure that we have a great relationship in terms of working with the embassy. >> needless to say, these are tedious tasks that you will be taking on. general, you have done so well and we often do not pay enough attention. once the casualty numbers went down in iraq, clearly the most

vital thing we have left to do was defining the nature of of these components fit together. thank you. >> senator sessions? you are ready? it goes to him. >> being a ranking judiciary is a full-time job. i wanted to express my admiration for both of these individuals who have great confidence in you and would sincerely wish to express my appreciation for your service. anyone who has traveled into iraq and afghanistan in seen the dedication of our leaders knows

how fabulous they are. we salute you. one of the things but from our conversation in as of sept., how would you advise the american people >> do we feel good about where we are with a risk in money? how would you evaluate what you were leaving? >> senator, i would say that we have continued to make steady progress we're going to but it

-- but it is time for us, showing us another point to progress. the iraqi security forces have taken over responsibility. the government in iraq is increasing its ability to function. they have a ways to go but they are getting better. allowing us to transition. we can assist them in helping them for them to sustain long- term stability. the next step is how we established that long-term relationship? the one that allows us to

maintain stability inside of iraq. we think that that is what we have to gain. frowhat am i worried about? not so much security but rather the economic progress. they have done some work with time and space, but we are now at a critical juncture of time and the formation of a new government. it will start to come to fruition over the next several years and we will see how that goes. i think all of those points are what is important. >> senator?

>> you and general petraeus have fabulous relationships with at the ambassador, as i understand it. you have a new embassador coming into iraq's and? -- coming into iraq soon? >> i do not know how much longer he will be there. >> general, in september what do you understand of the relationships and how they change between you as a combat commander and general ridge in iraq with the state department. will they take on a greater leadership role? has that been sorted out?

>> it is being worked out as usfi gets smaller. the footprint decreases. as general odierno said, there is great work going on right now with ambassador hill. certainly the ambassador is the senior person in country. i look forward to working with whoever the ambassador is. .

m i think that is true. i understand you have discussed the importance of making sure we adequately apply our resources to the top priorities in the iraq. one of those is the iraqi army and security forcee. i really feel strongly that, at this point in history, and i guess you both agree, that we should not shortchange the immediate need to make sure the iraqi army get that training and support to take on the high level of responsibility that we expect of them. would you comment on that?

>> senator, we have talked our way through that already. i would say that, it is important that we set them up for success in order to mitigate the risks that are ahead. i have been very pleased with how the iraqi army and police continue to perform. they still have some things that they do not yet have that i think are necessary for them to be prepared to take on full responsibility at the end of 2011 when we leave. that is what we're working towards now. >> thank you to you both for your service. general austin, i am glad -- it is another good thing in your training. mr. chairman, thank you for this hearing. i just recall when you and i and others were in iraq at the worst possible time -- how discouraged and worried we were.

you should never count of the united states military and the efforts -- count out the united states military and the efforts that we did to turn that around. a lot of people would not have thought this possible. our prayers are that we will be able to do some of the same things in afghanistan. it is looking difficult now, but perhaps it -- we're seeing all of the negative. we have to believe that we can put that on the right path, too. thank you. >> thank you, senator sessions. senator kaufman? >> thank you for your service. i feel totally inarticulate in trying to express how much i appreciate it and how much the american people appreciate what you're doing. general austin, you have a very big shoes to fill. i'm sure you are going to do very, very well at it. the reason i came over here was because most of the questions, when they get to me, have a

verdi -- have already been asked. i could not pass up the opportunity to say, general odierno, that i appreciate the quality of your service. we have embarked on a new counterinsurgency strategy. it requires a lot of new skills for our military. it is amazing how they have risen to it. when you look back on the history of iraq, your grasp of the military, economic, political issues and how they interact -- i do not think people thought that way before the war, 10, 20 years ago. it is key to how the coalition works and how you work with the secretary. iraq is the place where we finally figured out how to deal with the bad guys. iraq will be one of the key players. thank you. >> thank you, senator.

>> i have used this as an example of what a good job you did. this is what you did between the kurds and the iraq army. i left convinced that there were going to be shooting at each other very shortly. or solution to go there and begin these joint -- your solution to go there and begin these joint checkpoints w orked well. is that continuing to work well? >> it is. it is starting to expand. weehave agreement from the president and prime minister to incorporate four brigades into the iraqi army. that is an incredible step forward. we're working to figure out how we can train and equip them as they're able to be integrated into the army. >> general austin, i know you are not getting all the details,

but you think we will continue to have u.s. forces after september 1st up along that border to help keep bad things from happening? >> certainly, senator. i do believe that there will be a requirement to continue to work with the elements up their for some time. -- there for some time. we want to see the leadership of the iraq government embraced the issue to a much greater degree in the future. as time goes along, they have to establish a national vision, so that we can unify the country. that is going to take some time, but i certainly think it can be done. we will do everything we can to work with the ambassador and the leadership of both elements to ensure that they are making progress. >> general odierno, in your new position, how do you feel about general gates's effort to

rebalance the military and put more focus on these counterinsurgency efforts as we move forward? >> the concept of counterinsurgency is key to the camp -- the to the future. as i look back over the last seven, and eight, nine years, it is the complexity of the environment that we have to operate in. there are so many different things that in back military operations -- that impact military operations. we have to rethink how we do business and operate in this environment. people have watched what has gone on in iraq and afghanistan. they will try to take on those lessons if they come up against u.s. forces anywhere in the world. we have to feel how we would deal with that and make ourselves more prepared than they ever will be. that takes an intellectual capacity, thought, experience, and thinking out of the box in

some cases. more importantly, a thing secretary gates has pointed out that we have to be efficient in what we do. we have to become more efficient. how can we do that and make our forces more adaptable? that is important for me to focus on if i am confirmed and assume a new position. >> my final question is, one thing i'm interested in is non- lethal weapons, to give the warfighter for opportunities to a four-- if you're at operating base and there is a car coming at you at a high-rate of speed, i was impressed with where we're going with this. can you talk about not only the weapons? >> this kind of warfare is about precision and collateral damage. it is about eliminating collateral damage. it is killing innocent people. that is really what this is

about. what we've learned is, you know, if we're not careful and we get careless, even though it is for our own force protection, if we kill innocent people, the negatives to the mission are significant. we have to continue to think of ways -- nonlethal weapons is one way. we've learned a lot about the importance of non if the weapons. there are other ways for us to do other things besides fire first. i think we have learned that over time. those are very difficult decisions these young soldiers and sailors have to make on the ground. you want to given the capacity of something different than having to maybe fire alive around. there may be sending else they can do to protect themselves and innocent people in a situation they do not understand. >> thank you to you both for service. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator kaufman.

i have a few additional questions. general odierno, the current readiness reporting systems and the process being implemented to a system called defense readiness reporting system -- drrs -- which has been slow to come into operation since the decision was made eight years ago to switch from the status of resources in training -- s.o.r.t. why has the implementation taken so long? >> senator, i do not know. i think there are many nuances within the system that people are trying to work out. i will take a look at it. >> after you are confirmed, will you give us a chronology or

timetable to complete that transformation? will you do that? >> absolutely, senator. >> general, let me make sure i understand something you said about the iraq budget. the budget that they are currently operating on -- as i understand what you said, because of an increase in oil prices and therefore in oil revenues, the projected deficit in iraw, under -- iraq, under the budget, is $10 billion less than when the budget was adopted. >> there was a budget -- >> there is no surplus, but the deficit has been reduced because of the increase in oil prices. >> because of a surplus of cash

that they had. >> is that the result of increased oil prices? >> i do not know. i can give you an answer on that. >> they had something they did not count on? >> the net cash reserves from last year. it may have had to do with their expenditures from 2009. >> or less than they expected? they had $10 billion more in cash than what was expected in that budget. that is correct. >> general austin, one additional question. it has to do with the situation on the ground. the religious minorities continue to be very fragile. the u.s. commission on international religious freedom concluded that systemic, ongoing, and the greatest religious freedom violations continue -in the violations- and

egregious religious freedom violations continue in iraq, particularly for the smallest religious minorities. i have been very much involved in trying to find ways to give greater protection to those minorities, particularly the iraq the christian community. -- i iraqi -- iraqi christian community. will you keep us apprised of this area and any other area where there are religious minorities? will you keep a surprise on the conditions of those minorities in those regions? -- keep us apprised on the conditions of those minorities in those regions and increase the security for those people? and i will, mr. chairman du >> thank you. -- >> i will, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we hope we can get these

nominations confirmed in the next few days. we will do everything we can to speed up these confirmations in this committee and also on the floor of the senate. we will stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> our live g-20 summit coverage wraps up today with closing remarks from the canadian prime minister stephen harper at 5:00.

that is followed by a press conference with president obama. world leaders discussed financial regulations, economic stimulus measures, and the promotion of open trade. also, a news update at this hour. senator roberts byrd of west virginia is seriously ill. he is in a hospital. he was admitted late last week for heat exhaustion in severe dehydration. the senator was expected to be in a hospital for a few days, but his condition is worsening. senator byrd is 92 years old, the longest-serving member of congress. now, we go to remarks from senator orrin hatch on supreme court nominee elena kagan's nomination. kagan's confirmation hearing takes place tomorrow at 12:30 p.m. eastern. you can watch that live coverage of the hearing on c-span3. >> the senate's role of advice and consent, especially for supreme court justices, is one

of our most important constitutional duties. i would like to just share a few thoughts about how i will approach this task. america's founders designed the judiciary to be -- the weakest and least dangerous branch of the government. things have not worked out as planned. the judiciary is instead the most powerful and potentially the most dangerous branch of our government. what the then being accountable to the people by being subject to the people's constitution, activist judges often make the people accountable to them by seeking to control the peoples constitution. my objective in this confirmation process is to find out which kind of just as miss kagan would be if confirmed to the supreme court. judicial qualifications fall into two categories -- legal experience in judicial philosophy. legal experience is a summary of what a nominee has done in the

past and can be described in a resume or on a question here -- questionnaire. judicial philosophy relies on things that are much harder to determine, but i believe it is much more important. et's look at ms. kagan's experience. i have never believed it to be a disqualification -- if you do not have judicial experience. 39 supreme court justices -- about 1/3 -- had no previous judicial experience. what they did have was extensive experience in the actual practice of law, an average of more than 20 years. these are justices such as george sutherland, one of my predecessors as u.s. senator from utah, who practiced for 23 years, or robert jackson, who practiced for 21 years and served as both solicitor general

and attorney general. in other words, supreme court justices have had experience behind the bench as a judge before the bench -- as a judge, before the bench as a lawyer, or both. miss kagan has neighter. spent -- has neither. she never argued a case before becoming solicitor general last year. in working with the clinton administration, she focused on policy and legislation. ms. kagan would bring to the court experience "in the political circuits that often defines washington." some people may see little difference between the legal and the political, but i do. i am concerned about drawing the lines even further. the judiciary committee talked about ms. kagan's qualifications and claim that some senators questioned her fitness for the

supreme court solely because she has never been a judge. no one has made that argument. this democratic colleague identified justices byron white, william rehnquist and lewis powell as among those with no prior judicial experience. these justices practiced respectively for 14, 16, 37 and 39 years in the practice of law. and justice powell had also been president of the american bar association. there really is no comparison. so in this first element of legal experience, we have to be honest about what the record shows. unlike other supreme court nominees, ms. kagan has no judicial experience and virtually no legal practice experience. that leaves her academic and political experience. the democratic senator i mentioned identified as among

ms. kagan's strongest qualifications for the supreme court, her experience crafting policy and her ability to build consensus. judges, however, are not supposed to be crafting policy and consensus building only begs the question of what a consensus is being built to support. it's relatively light record of legal experience only places more importance on judicial philosophy and other qualification for judicial service. frankly, finding reliable clues about judicial philosophy is often harder in an academic and political record like ms. kagan's than in a judicial record. this is especially true when, like ms. kagan, a nominee has rarely written directly about the topic. this does not mean that reliable clues do not exist, just that they are harder to find. i have to take ms. kagan's record as it is because i have to base my decision on evidence, not blind faith. judicial philosophy refers to

the process of interpreting and applying the law to decide cases. that is what judges do, but they can do it in radically different ways. notice that i said this is about the process of deciding cases, not the results of those cases. many people, including some of my senate colleagues and many in the media, focus only on the results that judges reach, apparently phraoefg that political -- believing that political ends justify the political means. that is the wrong standard for evaluating either judicial decisions or judicial nominees. politics can focus on results, but the law must focus on the process of reaching those results. rather than the desirable ends justifying the means, the proper means must legimate the end. it makes no difference which side wins, which political

interest comes out on top or whether the result can be labeled liberal or conservative. if the judge correctly interprets and applies the law in a particular case, then the result is correct. i love to pin down as best i can what kind of justice ms. kagan would be. will the constitution control her or will she try to control the constitution? will she care more about the judicial process or the political results? as i said, those clues come primarily from her record, secondarily from next week's hearing. so let me briefly focus on a few areas of ms. kagan's record and mention some questions that need to be answered and some concerns that need to be addressed. first, while in graduate school, ms. kagan wrote that the supreme court may overturn previous decisions -- quote -- "on the ground that new times and circumstances demand a different interpretation of the constitution."

unquote. not a different application, mind you, but a different interpretation. she wrote quite candidly that it is -- quote -- "not necessarily wrong or invalid" unquote for judges to -- quote -- "mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends." unquote. and in 1995 law review -- law journal article, she agreed that in most cases that come before the supreme court, the judge's own experience and values become the most important element in the decision. in her words -- quote -- "many of the votes of supreme court -- many of the votes a supreme court justice casts have little to do with technical legal ability and much to do with conceptions of value." unquote. that sounds a lot like president obama, who said as a senator that judges decide cases based on their own deepest values,

core concerns, the depth and breadth of their empathy and what is in their heart. if that is too results-oriented, ms. kagan wrote, so be it. ms. kagan has not herself been a judge; those judges she has singled out for particular praise have this same activist judicial philosophy. in a tribute she wrote for her mentor, justice shurgd marshal -- thurgood marshall, for example, she described his judicial philosophy as driven by the belief that the role of the courts and the very purpose of constitutional interpretation is to -- quote -- "safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion." the court existed primarily to fulfill this mission. and, however much some recent justices have sniped at that vision, it remains a thing of glory."

unquote. in 2006, when she was dean of harvard law school, ms. kagan praised as her judicial hero aaron bharat who served on the supreme court of israel for nearly 30 years. she called him -- quote -- "the judge or justice in my lifetime whom i think best represents and has best advanced the valves democracy and human -- and the values of democracies and human law." that is not simply high praise, but the highest praise possible, for she says that justice bahrat was literally the best judge anywhere during her lifetime in representing and advancing the rule of law enforcement who is this judge who for ms. kagan at least is literally the best representation of the rule of law? judge richard posener, one of

the great intellects in the law has described justice bahrack one of the most prominent of the foreign judges who -- quote -- "without a secure constitutional basis, created a degree of judicial power undreamt of by our most aggressive supreme court justices." judge posener concluded that to justice barack -- quote -- "the judiciary is a law unto itself." these and other examples over a period of more than two decades fit consistently together. they indicate that for most of her career, ms. kagan has endorsed and has praised others who endorse an activist judicial philosophy. she appears to have accepted the judges may base their decisions on their own sense of fairness or justice, their own values of what is good and right and their own vision of the way society ought to be.

this is an activist philosophy, and this activist philosophy, she has said, is a thing of glory and best represents the rule of law. now, that is what her record shows. we will have to see what next week's hearing uncovers on this very important subject. there are also some specific subjects or controversies that must be explored. these might have been less important if ms. kagan did not have the record i just described. if she had not endorsed and praised judges making decisions based on their personal values and objectives, then evidence of her own personal values or objectives would obviously be less relevant. but as ms. kagan said in a 2004 interview, since a judge's personal attitudes and views make a difference in how they reach their decisions -- quote -- "the senate is right to take an interest in who these people are and what they believe." unquote.

i want to note two of the areas in which ii appears that ms. kagan's personal or political views have driven her legal views. the first is abortion. when she clerked for justice marshalll, she recommended against the court reviewing a decision in a case entitled lanzara. the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit said prison inmates have a right to elective abortions and that by refusing to pay for them, the county violated the constitution's 8th amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. ms. kagan promptly rejected this bizarre holding even calling parts of the analysis ludicrous. yet she urged against the court reviewing this decision because as she put it -- quote -- "this case is likely to become the vehicle that this court uses to create some very bad law on abortion and/or prisoners' rights."

unquote. broader policy objectives seem more important than even reviewing a ludicrous constitutional decision. the record also shows that later ms. kagan was a key player behind the clinton administration's extreme abortion policy. in may 1997, after president clinton had vetoed the partial birth abortion ban act, ms. kagan wrote a memo recommending that he support the substitutes for the ban being offered by senators daschle and feinstein. she recommended that solely for political reasons because it might attract some votes from senators who would otherwise vote to override his veto. had that strategy worked, of course, the substitutes would not have passed and partial-birth abortions birth abortion would have remained legal. the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion would have remained legal. significantly, however, ms. kagan noted that the office of legal counsel had concluded that these substitute amendments

were unconstitutional under the supreme court's roe v. wade decision. there is no indication that she disagreed with this conclusion. the point is that ms. kagan urged that purely political position on abortion that was at odds with what the clinton administration then believed the constitution required. once again it looks like politics trumped the law. another controversy involved the military's ability to recruit at harvard law school during ms. kagan's tenure as a dean. ms. kagan made her personal views and values as plain as anyone can make them, saying repeatedly that she had abhorred the military's policy with regard to homosexuals and calling it a profound wrong and a -- quote -- "moral injustice of the first order." unquote. federal law denies funds to schools with policies or practices that have the effect of preventing military recruiters the same access to

campus or to students that other employers have. a group called the forum for academician and institutional rights, or "fair" challenged the law in court. ms. kagan first joined a legal brief found in support of "fair"'s challenge with the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit. within 24 hours of the court enjoining enforcement of the solomon amendment, ms. kagan again banned military recruiters from access to harvard's office of career services. she was not required to do this because the third circuit does not include massachusetts. she kept the ban in place even after the third circuit stayed its own injunction while it was being appealed to the supreme court. in other words, ms. kagan denied military recruiters access even though the law still required access. she could have opposed the military's policy in various ways but chose to do so in a way that undermined military rekraouplt during wartime. a recruitment ban was lifted only after the professor of

harvard university stepped in and overrode ms. kagan's decision. ms. kagan then joined a group of law professors filing a brief with the supreme court. to its credit "fair" agreed with the government about the proper reading of the solomon amendment but ms. kagan and her fellow professors urged the court to read the statute in an artificial and unnatural way that actually contradicted both the plain terms of the statute and the position of the very party on whose behalf she had filed her brief. the statute required that the military be treated the same as employers who are granted access to campus. ms. kagan argued instead that the military be treated the same as employers who are denied access to campus. not surprisingly, the supreme court unanimously rejected ms. kagan's position saying that her group of law professors simply misinterpreted the statute in a way that would literally negate it and make it -- quote -- "a largely meaningless exercise." unquote. she did everything she could including defying federal law and making legal arguments that

even justice stevens could not accept to pursue her political objective. in closing, i want to come to the floor today -- i wanted to come here today to describe for my colleagues the approach i am taking to evaluate ms. kagan's nomination to the supreme court. the most important qualification for the position is her judicial philosophy, the kind of justice she will be. the evidence for her judicial philosophy comes primarily from her record, and i've touched on some areas of concern that must be examined more closely and then only a few. this is a grave decision. it is about more than simply one person. the liberty we enjoy in america requires that thh people govern themselves and that in turn depends on the kind of justices who sit on the highest court in the land. george washington said this in his farewell address -- quote -- "the basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and alter their constitutions of government. but the constitution which at any time exists still changed by

an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. judges who bend the constitution to their own values and who use the constitution to pursue their own vision for society take this right away from the people and undermine liberty itself. madam president, i yield the >> monday, the confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee elena kagan begin on capitol hill. what as the senate judiciary committee hears testimony live on c-span3 starting at 12:30 p.m. eastern. you can follow the hearings on c-span3 q&a @ c-span.org. you can watch replays at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> tonight on c-span2's "booktv," sarah allison, with an

inside account of rupert murdoch's purchase of the washington journal. afterwards, he and his guide were captured by the taliban and spent 45 days in a dark prison cell. he writes about it in "captive." next sunday, your questions for bill bennett live on "indepth." he is the author of more than 20 books for adults and children. on the entire schedule at booktv.org. join us on twitter. more than 30,000 viewers already have. c-span is available in over 1 million homes, bring you a direct link to public affairs, nonfiction books, all as a service created by america's cable company.

>> this is the grand by you village. we have been in this area for centuries. and nativestent american. we have lived in this region forever. we have seen the changes that have come into the environment, some of it natural, but the majority of it has been human- induced. we have managed to adapt and adjust our way of living in order to remain here. we are facing a situation right now, with the gulf disaster,

with the oil, and the dispersant used to sing that oil, we are facing something that we have never faced before. the unknown. we have no idea how this will impact our community, the length of time, how will impact the marine life that we're dependent on for our food source and also our source of revenue. we're looking for answers. we are watching. comes upting for what the bayou. >> what happened here during katrina? >> the village was impacted like many other places. the water and the wind came in and the community was devastated. we're still in the recovery right now. we have only managed to get five homes rebuilt. three homes have been renovated.

we have three more working -- in the works. if people want to come home -- people want to come home, but there have been many problems. now, with the lack of funding coming into the village, because we cannot go out into the water and earn money to put back into our community, this will be a problem to the return effort we have been making. katrina was a natural disaster. we knew how to deal with that. it was devastating. it was kind of a normal thing. we're used to loss and recovery.

or less, we can prepare for it, in can feed ourselves in the aftermath. this disaster with the gulf, we cannot do that. our livelihood is threatened to the very point where we cannot even eat our food. we have no idea what to do. >> how many homes were destroyed>> all of them, really. we have only managed to have three renovated in place. it is very hot out here today, i have to tell you. we have three homes renovated in place. everything else has been new builds. everything else coming up will be new builds. all of the homes were compromised beyond the 50% mark as far as destruction.

they were not -- it was not possible to renovate those homes. it had to be taken out and something else put into its place. good and bad -- it is lessening the time of recovery, but now the homes are elevated to mitigate floods loss and the structures are really sound -- a lot more than what was there before. they had been impacted from previous storms. the ones that we have now -- they are new, the construction is top notch, and we're out of the floodwaters. >> [inaudible] >> we had approximately 23 families here. we have nine families here now with three more planning to return. homese waiting for their to be completed in the coming year.

less than half.3 the area where the eye wall of katrina made landfall. the the surrounding areas were just a hop, skip, and jump away. this area was just devastated. we took a hard hit. the people are resilient. we are fighters. we're not people who just give up and roll over and say, and i am done. our continued presence here is a testimony to that. but we live in this natural world. we are part of this natural world. how many kids can this -- hits can this environment take before it is no longer able to recover? being a part of this natural world and part of this environment -- if this environment dies and suppers, -- suffers, then what is in and dies and suffers. we are part of that suffering. we see our own demise and what

is happening to the natural world around us. something needs to happen to change all of this. you know, we can no longer look and natured and see what we can take from it -- look at nature and see what we can take from it without minimizing our impact. we have to restore whatwe have taken away from it. we need these natural places. this is life. people look at the marshlands and the sea grass. we know, living here, that these are nursery's, habitats, -- nurseries, habitats, rookeries -- a lot of marine life, mammals, birds come into this region. these marsh grasses mean life to the fisheries. you cannot just say, it is only going to impact grass. it is impacting the entire ecosystem, of which people are just one component. we need to see to it that we

learn lessons from this. this has happened in other places before. this golf disaster. -- gulf disaster. it is sad to say that, you know, today, it is business as usual. look at what happened here. when will it not be enough? -- enough be enough? when will we stop and say, let's learn from this. let's put in the work. let's put in the safeguards. we need to the under -- we need we cannot allow ourselves to be hostage to one source of energy. oil is included in that, but we should not look only to oil. what is happening in the gulf right now is a testament. >> [inaudible] we are fortunate we get to live here. >> every day. some people come to get away from it all. >> tell us about the gulf

restoration effort and what you are doing here. >> we're a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization. through been around to a number of and our mental crises that the gulf of mexico has been exposed to. five years ago, we saw hurricane katrina come through, which we thought was quite possibly the worst environmental disaster. i think we are seeing its match, unfortunately. we're the only environmental advocacy organization that exclusively focuses on the gulf of mexico. we have board members in all sizable states. -- in all five gulf states. we have staff and florida, -- in florida, texas, and louisiana. we have been in the bentley monitoring the crisis -- the cleanup and containment -- and working to see in more effective response to help protect the natural resources of the gulf of mexico. one thing to keep in mind as we are coming out here, as we go through the wetlands, we're going to see a lot of pipeline canals, things that have been

done to this coastal ecosystem that really benefited the nation. this pipeline did not necessarily make new orleans rich. they made the nation rich . the oil and gas in that the piercing -- impact that we are seeing now from bp -- it is incredibly significant. it is one piece of a larger crisis. louisiana loses 25 miles of coastal wetlands each year. that is unrivaled. since 1930, we lost about 2000 square miles of louisiana marsh that just turned to open water. half of that reason is because of the oil and gas activity that has been happening in the marsh. >> how? >> they dredged tens of thousands of miles of canals through those systems. when you dredge a canal, a few things happen. you allow so order to gain entry into brackish or

freshwater ecosystems. -- allow saltwater to gain entry into brackish or freshwater ecosystems. it can create as small levy -- a mini levy system. when a storm comes in with a surge, or there is a really high tide and the wind combined, it does not leave the marshes as quickly as it would otherwise. it stays there. that salt water will kill the plants and dissolve the land. much of this march is plant -- marsh is plant matter. it is a crisis. this is something that should have been addressed when the oil companies were started on exploring this area. it is ongoing. we need to see action. unfortunately, the obama administration is getting hammered for their perceived mishandling of this crisis. i will not defend how the resources are being deployed, but i will say that they have been very engaged in the coastal wetlands crisis for quite awhile. in march, the unveil a road map -- they unveiled a road map for

restoration that actually laid out a vision and a plan. the way to create a sustainable coast is by putting the river and the sediment back into these ecosystems. when we build the levee, we -- the levy in 1927, we basically do not the coast. -- doomed the coast. in the past 4000 years, all of the land south the baton rouge was built by the flood plain of the mississippi river. it put fresh water and sediment into the system. there is no bed rock around south louisiana. it is all sinking sediment. it would be combated by the river. it would be winning the war and building land. when we hemmed in the river with the levees and the jet tty system to make sure de rigueur was constantly deep enough --

make sure the river was constantly deep enough to provide shipping for the nation -- when the oil companies came in, we need to fix it. we need to put the river back into the system. we can do sediment piping into , taking the dredging into pipelines to directly rebuild the sinking wetlands. it is not cheap, nor easy, but a fast and be done. -- it has to be done. the nation benefits from what comes from down here. the bill is coming due. >> how did you get involved? >> i have been an environmental organizer for about 15 years. i have worked in d.c. and new orleans. i work to see a better impairment of future for the region. -- a better environmental future for the region. >> where are we and where are we going? >> we're in grand bayou and on our way out to barataria bay. we will look at the oil.

>> [inaudible] >> oil sheen? the heavier packages that you can see there. we have a problem with erosion. this is compounding the problem. the entire coastline is covered in oil, as far as you can look. but we have boom. ok? ok, i hope you got the sarcasm in that. >> can you explain that sarcasm? >> i mean, how effective was this response? how effective was that? you make the call. i look at that and it makes me sick, because i know what this means. there is more to come, because it is still going on. they have not stopped the flow. all of this time, it has been

flowing, and it was allowed to reach year. -- here. there is more to come. this is the response. how can we plan the next step when this continues? >> we are right on the coast. we getting ready [inaudible] >> [inaudible] we have several acres. -- 70-some acres. >> what would this normally look like? and green. not with all this oil on it. >> what do you see now?

>> a lot of disaster. i have seen a lot of oil on the ground. it does not look good. it will kill all the oysters. the oysters and against the bay. it there is no way they will survive this. -- there is no way they will survive this. it is devastating. outt nothing good can come of this. the oysters are all gonna die. they won't do anything for a long time. the oil is saturating the marsh. it is on the seafloor. it will be years before we get oysters out of there. >> yet taken a picture of an oyster that is dying. -- you have taken a picture of an oyster that is dying. it is a way of life for my husband and a lot of fishermen. you're looking at death. no more fishing.

no more trapping. no more oysters. it is death. >> what does your husband do? >> he is a commercial fisherman. >> maurice. >> is this your shrimp boat? could you tell me about the boats? >> i had one before this. i got this after katrina. fiberglasso get me oa and one that requires less maintenance. -- of fiberglass one that requires less maintenance. i have been having it since katrina. >> what does that do to your business? >> i look forward every year to the season opening. we schrempp all year round. -- shrimp all year round. i'm like a kid with the new toy. i love doing it. it's in the blood. i cannot see myself not doing

it. it is just wonderful to go up there and compete with others. it is just enjoyment. it is a good living. it is something you do it every year. >> is the money pretty good when you are getting a lot? -- catching a lot? >> id is pretty good. the price of fuel right now is not -- it is pretty good. the price of the shrimp just went up. it makes it a little bit better than what it has been. you can make a decent living doing it. >> when did you have to stop shrimping? >> we stopped about two or three weeks ago. we did not know if the season was over or not. the area at the venice which we

go to -- they have also been told. guest: >> how did -- >> who tells you to stop? >> they come out on the news and the internet and show you the area. >> have you gotten any help from bp? >> i got one check already. i should be getting one more in the mail. bamut is that helping a lot? -- >> is that helping a lot? >> a little bit, not a whole bunch. the way we was working with the shrimping, we was doing way better than waiting on $5,000 a month. we normally would make that in a day or a couple of days, you know. it is way down right now. >> what would you expect the federal government to do to help? >> i would expect them to pick

up where bp is not -- i mean, they can do better than what they have been. i expect the federal government to pick it p. >> his way of life -- that he has now -- ever since he was little and grew up -- it is gone. what is he going to do next? he cannot take -- you know, he cannot continue to do this. he has to have income at some point. r.o.c. want to provide? -- how is he going to provide? you know, when there is nothing -- everything that he has and has worked for all his life to gain, you know, is all jeopardized. now -- we was in the middle of raising our hands on -- are -- our grandson to learn how to do

these things and get familiar with the water and the boats -. and now you may as well throw a fishing rod with no book on it. -- no hook on it. the fish that he will catch in his future will be contaminated or nonexistent. his generation -- him and his cousins -- they're not going to be abll to enjoy the waters as we did. >> [inaudible] >> my name is raymond. >> and you said you were a tug boat driver? >> yes. that was about 47 years. now we go and get oil. i still work on the boat, you know.

about four miles out. maybe less. >> you live here? mees. >> and yes -- >> yes. i live right across the bayou. >> these boats belong to the community? >> that is my brothers and sisters -- member cousins. -- that is my cousins. the whole village is related. >> how has this oil spill affected your community? >> we were commissioner -- commercial fisherman. we shrimp, oysters. all of that is done. there is no way to make money. it is really bad. >> how quickly after the accident did you see oil? >> it to about a week to get -- took like, let's see, about a

week to get here. you could imagine what it is like down on the bottom and in thh grass. i use a lot of bond soap -- dawn soap. [laughter] it's the only way. >> is it one year, five years, 10 years, 20 years? nobody has the answer. we have agencies and we have all of these scientists. they are looking at this according to what they're saying, every day monitoring conditions. we ask, how long. they always say they do not know. >> can you tell me about the scene of two weeks ago? >> we wanted to check out the oyster beds. my nephew had been out here the day before. he had a little bit of oil in the water.

i just wanted to see what it looked like in the oyster bed. when i came out here, it was covered. miles and miles of oil. i picked up a pelican that was covered up an oil. -- in oil. i went in to land and called my brother. i told them. that evening, i came back and had about 30 folks skimming, -- they had about 30 boats skimming, picking up a while. -- up oil. they got right on it. >> was their boom out before? >> no, they put it out the next day. >> when you called the parish president, did he know that it was out there? >> he called them. >> you called him. he did not know yet? >> no. >> this entire region is imperiled and we do not know. do we plan to hold tight for five years and then see some type of relief?

the we have to hang on for 10 years? -- do we have to endure for 10 years? what kind of planning do we do? worst-case scenario. what is the worst-case scenario? the two decades of our lives and our livelihood may be imperiled by what is going on right now. that is the worst-case scenario. how do we maintain our llfe. -- how do we maintain our life until that time? where does that come from? we have no idea. this is karen and maurice's home. my home is right next to it. .

today, talks move to toronto for the g-20 summit that included china, brazil, and india. we built a bringing in the closing news conference today very shortly. first an update from the meetings from a capitol hill reporter.

we are waiting to go to the final speech from the canadian prime minister stephen harper. they have been discussing economic stimulus measures and the promotion of open trade. we will have the remarks live here on c-span very shortly. we go now to the jack and 20 summit. the canadian prime minister -- we go now to the g-20 summit. from "washington journal."

this is the "sunday star." to give you sense of the security around the g-20 summit taking place. behind the black block is the headline. meanwhile the toronto sun, the measures to keep this under control and anarchy is from the autoaway sun. 2k34r joining us is marty kruts inninger covering this story. thank you for being with us. guest: good morning. hoot: i'm going to talk to you about security in a moment but some of the policy coming out of this g-20 summit, it seems president obama wants to spend more and others want to reign in the deficit. so there seems to be a difference between what he wants to do and the other. >> the g-20 summit process was begun in the aftermath of the

2008 financial crisis. where the leaders zided the g-8 letters -- the g-8 leaders zided they needed more. so they first met in washington in november of 2008. this will be the fourth meeting where the leaders have gotten together. and in the beginning it was pretty easy to reach consensus because fear can drive people to join a common purpose. so a year ago. they were assembling large amounts of stimulus spending. all countries were, to try to jump-start economic growth. that has worked. and the u.s. economy has been growing now for about a year. other countries are growing.

a lot of them slower than the united states. but now all that stimulus spending has driven up government deficits and countries especially i europe are worried about a greek style debt crisis so they've beg reigning in their deficit spending of the new british prime minister, david cam'ron came to toronto after unveiling the most severe of austerity program britain has seen in probably about a half century. so there is a difference of opinion. the adminisation, the united states bblieves that we don't want a repeat of the mistake of the 1930's when governments pulled back on stimulus spending too quickly and that just prolonged the great resession. >> we're looking at the canadian prime minister welcoming in the g-8, the president getting the support of the house countries. d they now go to the house

and senate. the white house saying that the president wants to sign the measure by the end of this week. has the given him any leverage in term of trying to implement some of the reforms that are now in place in this country in marketsike london and other %% european countries? >> yes. i think it has. the administration had very much wantedo have that conference committee finished by the time the president came to toronto. and they worked all night, thursday night into sunrise friday morning, and that was accomplished. so he came here able to tell the other countries, look, the ited states has is on the verge of passing this sweeping overhaul of its financial regular layings. so we're setting an example, and you need to follow as well. that's one of the issues they are going to be talking about this last day of the summit is

financial regulatory reform and how to coordinate the policies in the different countries. >> marty kruts inninger joining us from toronto where the g-20 will conclude. be i the way we'll have coverage. the president heading back to washington, d.c. but i want to show you one of the many photographs of the demonstrations taking place around toronto where the g-20 is occurring and the cost per hour foo security according to a story in "the new york times," $12 million per hour making it the most expensive 72 hours in canada's history. >> they are upset. and for a variety of reasons here. this is not unusual. that has become the pattern for these summits. as world leaders gather, that attracts the attention of a global press corps, and also

that attracts the attention of demonstrators who are not always happy with what the world leaders are doing. so they show up here, and that has occurred here as well. security since 9/11 for these events has gotten much, much tighter. all countries spend a lot of money on the security of these events and led some people wonder whether the event itself is worth the cost of the security. but yes. it's an expensive process. i think one estimate there are 19,000 scaurt law enforcement people drawn from all over canada who are protecting the summit sides. >> marty crutsinger, writes for the associated press. at the end of the day was this summit a success for the obama administration? did the president essentially get what he wted?

>> well, i think we have one more day to go before the g-20 joint statement will come out this afternoon. but it looked very much like he didn't get what he wanted in terms of an agreementhat stimulus spending was still the paramount interest tt needed to be the focus of various countries. countries are ziding to go their own way in that effort. but the united states is going to sign on to the canadian prime minister harper's goals on deficit reduction. the u.s. was planned -- the u.s.'s plan fits into those goals. t the m fact that he won the big m victory with a conference committee report right before he came to toronto and said ewe'll go to these other leaders and say look what we did on financial regulatory reform.

they have to zide what to -- they have to decide what to do. and credit just froze up for a me. so that's a -- that discussion will happen today. it's likely that they won't reach any final conclusion, but thh leaders hope to get momentum to their finance ministers so when they meet again in seouln november they will be able to sign of an off on an agreement. the overall cost of security takeover last three days in canada, $887 million. marty c

>> this weekend, international leaders have been at the g-eight and g-20 summits. we'll be hearing from prime minister harper. this is the world economy remains fragile and still needs stimulus, but countries need to move on a specific time line to cut deficits in half by 2013. we will be wrapping up the summit momentarily. for now, we go to the "washington journal," for discussion on unemployment and tax issues. host: as the g-20 summit wraps up in front and we focus on the reform bill going to the house and senate this week. our two guests talking about the economy and definite spending and where the world stands world bide. with the economic policy institute the vice president of that institute, thank you for being with us and tony fratto contributor of cnbc. thanks for being with us.

>> thank you, steve. host: you posted that financial regulatory reform bill -- guest: one is the fact that so much regulatory discretion was left to the regulators that we're going to see three r four years going forward. i think of this as a full employment bill for lobbyists and lawyers for financial firms working with the regulators to find out exactly what the legislation means for them and that's one part of it. the second part is to some degree what the u.s. congress was focused on here was an all of a sudden believe that our %- financial system stops at our borders. and as we know this is an enormous global financial system where cross-border transactions are measured in the trillions of dollars, and we need to start the work on global financial regulations

and standards for banks that are involved in cross-border transactions. the one thing that's fairly ar cane, but the leaders need to focus on now and i believe come to a resolution in november is on the definition of capital. if we're going to set standards, we're going to talk about appropriate levels of lopes and liquidity, we can get into that -- it was left to them to deal with, but we need the heads of state to encourage quicker action now and come to a resolution at the g-20 meeting in november. host: there's also the complex rule, we covered all of them. can you plain the sfans?

>> well, derivatives are bets. they are -- they cover an enormous range of things. you can have derivatives on everything from the weather to the price of sugar a year from now. the price of gasoline a year from now. if you're an airline, it's sort of an insurance policy where if you're worried the price of gas is going to be up and it's going to cut into yourr profit, then you take a position on gasoline. and you try to make money against that rising price. so this has become a market of -- that's been unregulated. there's no trance parentsy in the market. and it's hundreds of trillions of dollars, perhaps. ip, no one really knows full extent of it. so a market that big and that unregulated can cause -- who

should be making these bets? what should be the rules for making the bets? should there be a market where everybody can see the price of these derivatives? and to make it very clear, when investors are investing in a bank, for example, that they know what that bank's position the with regards to derivatives. it's a huge issue and congress really just took the first step. and there was an attempt to keep banks out of the derivativesal market, and -- host: in the new york times, here's the president's signature and we'll start the countdown for -- including the federal deserve and securities

and exchange commission and the federal deposit insurance corporation. when the bankers convened there was still plenty of time to lobby kong, but the group's president and its board board of directors told the group that they should shift its focus on the rule making process and the lobbying gets underway. >> i think that's right. i think all of the parties who were interested in this legislation understood in the last few weeks. especially when once they got into conference as to what the final legislation would look like, made a determination that we've got to fight the next battles. and i think that's what you'll see them doing and possible some technical corrections to this legislation. we know when congress writes complex legislation, and i'm trying to think of and can't come up with another piece of

legislation sweeping and dealing with more complex issues than this, we know there are going to be mistakes and unintended language and unintended consequences. this is something we saw, by the way, for example, with a relatively more narrow bill. the sarbanes oxly bill we passed during the bush administration. dealing with a fairly narrow topic of company accountability. and we dealt with unintended consequences and disconnect between the way firms are regulated here in the united states versus the way they are regulateed in europe and other parts of the world. and we had to deal with those issues for a number of yeaas. so we know some of that is going to come out of this legislation, too. it's very, very broad. the breadth 06 this bill is breath taking. host: it's said president obama wants more countries to spend more money to great jobs and global growth. but david camron of great

britain and os saying we can't spend more. we got to bring down our own deficit. so can you plain the difference between the spending and reduction? guest: the biggest world economy problem is there was this tremendous loss of wealth in the world because of the subprime disaster both in the stock markets around the world and in housing markets. trillions and trillions of dollars were lost. so that took from the world economy a lot of consumer demmnd. and so all of the economies around the world, with the exception of china, maybe, had been struggling. so what do you do to replace that lost demand? how do you stim late the economy and put people back to work. in the united states we have $15 million people unemployed. how do you get those people

back to work? and if consumers don't have the wherewithal to go to the markets themselves to buy things, the only answer is the government has to step in. and the government has to spend on infrastructure, spend on education, spend on supports for all the people who are out of work. that's what obama's asking for. unfortunately, as you say, a number of the european >> we wrap up our coverage today with remarks from canadian prime minister harper. >> concerned with growing debt. this was the challenge we had to face. during the summit we designed a clear goal for the developed economies in terms of reducing debt, stabilizing, and reducing

the debt to gdp ratio. they want to cut by 50% by 2013 and for the debt to gdp ratio needing to be reduced or stabilize by 2016. having said that, fiscal consolidation is not an end unto itself. stimulus will have a long-term effect in order to guarantee durable and balanced economic growth. this is part of what we promised in piitsburgh. we congratulate various countries that have managed to adopt measures in terms of budget and deficit reduction such as what has happened in the

u.k., the reduction of unemployment in china, and a new regulation in the u.s. we are also going to work to have a balance and durable economic growth. the g-21 some assessment for each country -- the 20 once an assessment for each country. we have come to an agreement for important reform of the financial sector. improve regulation, capitalization, and a prudent approach. we managed to complete this important work earlier than forecasted. each country will be able to determine and apply a bank tax

if necessary. we have also discussed other measures such as anti- protectionism and the cancellation of the debt of haiti. the g-20 has a lot more to do to ensure good recovery, but we have strived towards goals that canada has worked for. as we strive to build sustainable economies, that is the issue we have to tackle head-on. we have a firm targets on debt reduction and reducing its debt to gdp ratio is. the targets are a 50% deficit- reduction by 2013 in a debt to gdp ratio that should be stabilized or on a downward trend by 2016.

all leaders recognize that fiscal consolidation is not an end in itself. there will be a continued role for ongoing stimulus in the short term as redevelop the frame work for strong sustainable and balanced growth. in terms of the framework, we want to applaud a number of recent actions that are important. down payments, if i can use that term, the budget of the united kingdom which strongly tackled the british deficit, chinese flexibility on exchange rates, and the new u.s. law on financial regulatory reform. the g-20 summit declaration that puts some of the meat on the bones for strong, sustainable, and balanced growth will lead us to assessments as we approach the next meeting in seoul. it is important to note ongoing

and important financial sector reforms to increase the quality and quantity of capital standards, to enhance spurred in regulatory oversight, and a commitment to a accelerate this work and completed by the summit in south korea. i should notice that the issue of bank levees has been left to individual companies -- individual countries. continued progress on anti- protectionism, we have agreed to keep the standstill for another three years. also debt relief for the country of haiti, which as you know, is an important priority for canada. there's also summon porn work being completed on reform of international institutions. that work will continue as we move forward. the g-20 still has a lot to do to fully entrenched recovery. the g-20 still has a lot to do to fully entrenched.

recovery, but these are importance steps forward -- fully entrenched the global recovery, but these are important steps forward. >> thank you very much. we will now take questions. when i call your name, please stand up and we will bring you the microphone. limit to one question and no follow-ups. a mandolin. -- amanda ling. >> there is an indication from president sarkozy that these targets may be a goal but not a firm commitment. we wonder about the ability to meet debt reduction targets. can you comment on how confident you are? >> in terms of european countries, they have agreed to similar agreements within the european union. i am confident that all countries that make these

commitments will fill them. there will the pressure from the markets. there will the market pressure to fill this. in thh case of japan, the declaration gives greater latitude to the japanese case. eight japanese debt levels are much, much higher than the rest oo us and are entirely financed domestically. there's been some recognition that japan's targets may be different. i am firmly convinced that as we move forward these will be targets that are pursued and in most cases pursued as minimal objectives. in the case of canada, we will most likely meet these targets by next year and in both cases, the deficit and the debt target. others will take a closer to the deadline. >> good afternoon, mr. harper.

everyone has their own story to tell. there's probably not enough margin, flexibility, and in the end everyone may do what they wish and this would damage this agreement. president sarkozy has said the targets are involuntary commitment. everything is voluntary that we do here -- >> everything we do here is voluntary. we have taken such commitments. the world is looking at us and waits for our performance. in terms of the fiscal target, this is more than just an agreement between heads of state. it is an agreement for the markets. when we have seen what has

happened to the markets over the last few months, i think it is clear that the markets will wait for our deeds and therefore it is essential. i have a lot of trust and i have already said earlier that european countries have adopted similar measures within the european union. we have offered greater flexibility to japan because they have a slightly different situation. but for the others is a central -- is essential to respect the commitment in order to ensure a recovery. >> if i could add a further comment. some of the countries here have different positions.

all of the heads understand that each country has differences that are recognized by different measures. however, it is clear that the cohesion that we'd see during the meeting of the g-20 is striking. i think now and again we pursue a slightly different policies, but the objective is always the same. we want a global plan to ensure a recovery of strong economic growth that will also need to be balanced and sustainable.

it is the framework that we developed for a strong and sustainable recovery. we have to make your choices, but we have a common goal. we all understand this. this is the foundation of our actions. >> good afternoon, prime minister. we have seen that the mass of poor decisions are made within the g-20 countries. -- it we have seen that many of the important decisions are made within the g-20. do we still need the g-eight? >> it is qualitatively different than the g-20. and is a smaller crop of countries, that we all recognize, less able to take decisive action on the global economy than it once was.

obviously, not economic growth and development is so much more broadly spread around the world. that is why the g-20 has displaced the g-8 for economic cooperation. the g-8 does certain positives. these countries are quite similar in their economic structure. they tend to be like-minded across a broader range of issues. ttat allows us to have important consultations on economic matters but also allows the g-8 to make decisions on peace and security that are still well inside the ambit of the discussions of the g-20. >> prime minister, as you and the other leaders have been meeting in side, the world has been watching the violence in

the streets of toronto. i would like to comment on a couple of things, one from the violence, and two, most with the canadians have heard have been very international. they might be wondering that other than a big bill for the cleanup and the police, what do they get out of this? how is this talk of fiscal consolidation and financial regulatory reform really affect their lives? >> first of all, in terms of the violence, we ought -- we obviously deplore the actions of a few thugs, but the reality is unfortunately that the summits a track this element. that has been a problem around the world. with that being said, that goes along to explain why we have the security costs that we do.

the most important issue we have today in canada that we have had for the last few years without a shadow of a doubt is the economy. as a constantly remind canadians, there is not really a canadian economy any more. it is a global economy. the canadian economy, so to speak, is doing better than many other countries. the general trajectory of the canadian economy whether we are on the downhill or the rebound as we are this year, it is fundamentally determined by the state of the global economy. that is what these meetings are about and why they are so critical. it is critically participate and play a major role because canadian jobs and the future of canada are intimately linked to what goes on here. quite frankly, everything we do in our country to improve our position is ultimately to improve the position within the context of a global economy.

we cannot be of effective in major economic matters unless we work with our other economic partners closely and intimately. that is essential. i know some people do not like it. it is the law of national sovereignty, but it is the simple reality. we are in a global economy. the global economy is determining where we are headed and will determine our future. we have to play our part in these forums to make sure our interests are protected and advanced. >> radio canada. good afternoon, mr. harper. there are clear commitments by industrialized countries. what are your expectations for the emerging countries? >> personally,,i think emerging countries understand the reality of the situation.

we have, in most industrialized countries, and canada is an exception, but in the majority there will be very slow recoveries and slow growth in the years to come. this is due to the fiscal situation and the banking situation. in canada, we have a different situation in terms of our situation. the fact of the matter is, this will damage growth in a number of countries. therefore we need to stimulate economic demand in the emerging

countries because this will contribute to the world recovery. some emerging countries are ready to face this despite their situation. these countries -- in the case of china, countries that have committed themselves to give more flexibility to their foreign exchange rate. we want to develop the framework for a strong and balanced economic growth. the emerging countries have certain limitations but they are absolutely ready to play their parts. everyone here understands that

this is a global economy and therefore we need to have global policies can be applied by everyone. >> afternoon, prime minister. on china, notwithstanding your words of introduction, we know the g-21 to formally recognize the currency move. -- the 20 wants to formally recognize the currency move. there seems to be a contradiction. the g-20 is supposed to be the premier forum for global economic governments. >> and is quite frequent in declarations that countries do not one to be singled out.. the declaration has an important commitment to have a greater flexibility in exchange rates going forward. they have made that commitment to the world coming into and at

the summit. i am confident that the chinese will fulfil that commitment. when you make commitments like this on the world stage, you will be held accountable for them. >> thann you very much, everyone. >> our live coverage of the g-20 summit continues with closing remarks from president obama. earlier he met with the prime ministers of india, turkey, and japan. during the g-20, leaders from the top 20 industrial and developing nations endorsed a pledge by rich nations to slash -- to slash budget deficits in half in three years. prime minister harper says the gap and 20 countries must get their fiscal houses in order as stimulus plans expire and switch

from deficit spending to deficit reduction. meanwhile, president obama says he wants to caution his counterpart at cutting spending too quickly could stalled the as we wait for president obama to appear, here is a portion of "washington journal," on government spending, unemployment, and tax issues. it was the government intervention. host:il room? guest: it is a hobby for me. it is a website where i have a place to put some of my riding that i was not necessarily going bc.com and i opened it up to all bush administration

officials, former bush administration officials on the debate. they had their own blogs and were doing television appearances. we aggregaae everything they do. ,6evsome people do original wrg for the website as well. you have all these officials who have a viewpoint, a talent and have left government and have some comment on the current policy debate. i would have liked to have seen the current -- the clinton -- former clinton administration people do this as well and how t#/policy is actually made. they are at the roosevelt room table making policy and we would one easy place to find out what they have to say about these issues. host:çvjo do you think of the oa administration is reading your views? guest: i don't know.

>host: how often do you contribute? guest: irregularly. host:tñ" we will take your phoe calls. stanley, from south carolina, good morning. caller: i have been listening into the conversation. i believe that the president -- we have to spend money to get folks back to work. we have to/+mxñ stimulate the economy. 2áwki believe that we will brig down the deficit when folks get back to work by them spending money,au0-v bringing taxes intoe economy. that is how i think the deficit

-- how we will decrease the deficit. of view?ur response to his poine guest: on the need to spend to be able tooffill this call -- i have never been big on deficit and spending. there are natural need from time to time to have deficits. an ecoc downturn, isl) think you want o have things to put to into a deficit to deal with a downturn. i also don't mind borrowing for investment in the future that will result in a greater return to the general economy and government. the problem is when you are borrowing for consumption, present-day consumption, you lose that multiplier in the future and you didn't get the

return you need. stimulus spending -- the question is never whether federal spending into the economy palms that money into into the economy with low rates of borrowing. the question was whether it was sustainable and whether the economy would pick up on its own. i wrote this a year ago. the question is not whether you will have some job creation and economic activity when the federal government becomes $900 -- dumped $900 million into the economy. the question is whether the economy will be self sustaining and be able to run on its own legs. that is not what we are seeing right now. you can take a look at the chart that russ put up in recent

levels of job growth that are not government jobs, we aree seeing a reduction in job growth and very, very high levels of weekly unemployment claims that may be the most stubborn statistic out there for economists. it is a very, very stubborn we have to figure out what is going on with that part of the job market. host: you are a graduate of the university of pittsburgh. let me pointxeç>÷ol= out one h- it is spending on local spending plummeted. they spend on roads, schools, all construction products so fast that federal stimulus money has that been able to fill in the gap. >guest: this is the biggest

single problem over the next year. state and local governments have a budget gap of $125 billion in the year ahead. it is not just that they are stopping projects, they will be laying off hundreds of thousands of workers including probably 300,000 education workers, teachers and school personnel. starting a this fall. when that happens, that will do real damage to the economy. only congress can do anything about this. the states are forced to balance their budgets. they cannot borrow. they cannot do deficit spending. if congress does not pass legislation they are considering now to inject money#h to pay fr teachers and to help the states with medicaid expenses and other expenses that will keep people

employed, we will see a sharp drop in employment. we will see unemployment at about 10% i predict. host: we have a link to our guests' website. in our last hour, we talked to jennifer who turned to twitter after the call in on the air. [laughter] laguna, calif., getting up early is next. guest:keynesian economics has never worked in terms of 3=x. riú&going back to fdr and his nw deal, the average unemployment rate during that time from 1933- 1940 was 17% despite the most vigorous application of

keynesian economics. the most successful example was warren harding and the depression of 1920 which is not part of the debate. the decline in national income was almost the same, not quite, as the great depression. in terms of national income. unemployment rose quite a bit, too. warren hiding slashed$,6 govert spending almost in half and slashed taxes. and the result was the roaring '20s when unemployment got down to 1.5%. my question is, how well as the national press done its job in terms of educating the american public, in terms of the efficacy of the two different approaches, the libertarian approach that warren harding used versus the keynesian

approach of fdr. ? guest: most of the press have a keyneeian view of the world where they cannot understand how you can generate growth with government spending or some kind of fiscal stimulus. they are far less understanding of dealing with business cycles and the influence of monetary policy. that needs to be part of the discussion for th. i spent time looking at what the fed is doing and the impact of monetary policy on our economy. they have enormous challenges getting that policy correct. as we went through the financial crisis, they naviiated through uncharted waters in terms of

dealing with the crisis. now, theyyhave a great deal of risk going forward. they have to get the policy right in terms of the magnitude of what the policy rate should be, how quickly you should get there, the general outlook on the economy. i tried to give people a good sense of how difficult this job is and to think about getting policy right for the future. everyone makes estimates of what gdp will look like. i remind them that -- on friday we just had a new number come out, taking a look at the final estimate for gdp which was revised down to 2.7%. that was the third estimate for that quarter. it took us three estimates to get it right and that was for the quarter behind us, not for the quarter looking for. everyone should take estimates for growth and job creation with

a grain of salt. host: this is an e-mail saying what is the point of having a roundtable with "soft speaking easygoing types? where do you guys agree? guest: we disagree about the role of government right now. he is not an ideologue about this. you don't have a choice when you have a 50 million people unemployed. you have to spend money to help them. all of those families will have a financial wild. we are in a situation where we don't have a welfare program that can help them gettup -- get employed. if they lose employment, they could lose their houses or get kicked out as renters. there are food stamps available to keep them from starving, but there is one job for every five

unemployed workers right now. if the government does not step in to help them we will have a disaster on our hands. this is the first time i have heard warren harding praised for his economic policy. his administration was known for scandals. the result of what he called the libertarian policy was not a sustainable recovery. the eight years after he took office, we have the great depression. we have host: the debate going on. guest: in defense of this, you'd never build this as "crossfire." guest: most of the press has -- host: most of the press is reporting that the deficit is the worst thing ever. hugh is joining us from asland,

virginia. guest: i would like to give you a reference from a "wall street journal" article from 1983. you can in google creativity 777.com. web sites have the opportunity to transform the entire global business environment if they are utilized correctly. host: john is joining us from abbeyville, south carolina, democrats line. caller: i want to comment about the article on the war in congress. i am a victim of this war.

my unemployment will be cut off. i wish that the people in washington were fighting for my position. host: we were focusing on the editorial that congress is in a war zone and nothinn can get done unless both parties can get along. guest: letting unemployment insurance benefits lapse now when there are five unemployed people for every job vacancy is pretty close to criminal, in my view. i would like to see and i hope it is the case that finally the majority leader would take a bill to extend unemployment benefits and get that bill passed and then they could go back and fight about everything else that they disagree about. i hope both parties would agree that we cannot let families just

fall off the cliff with no help which is what is happening now. benefits have been cut off, extended benefits have been cut off for almost one month now. there are people who are still getting them, but people who have been unemployed for six months and there are almost 7 million of them, will no longer get benefits, people who go past the six-month mark will be cut off. it is hard to be cut off right now. that will be terrible for their 7ú.hcommunities, local business, and obviously for them and their families. host: another article says the state and local officials are competing for financial health. in congress they respond quickly and positively with no at -- aid and the debt is $16 trillion

and growing. guest: i remember during the bush administration that larry summers went up to congress and testified on the problems caused by ending deficits which at that time were in the $300 billion range. he talked about crowding out the long-term impact and we are now seeing the deficits at five times that rate. with unemployment benefits, that was an effort that senator snowe made to senator reid that they stand alone. if you go around the country and talk to people, they are beginning to be concerned about not just the amount of federal spending of bay are saying and a

sizeable deficit but also the extended unemployment benefits among some parts of the population. they are wondering how long is too long? to have that discussion on a stand-alone bill i think would be wise. we need to have a national discussion. with respect to states, i have some sympathy for state because the federal government over the years has been in a difficult situation where we create structural problems for states in economic downturns. the federal government great programs and they sharekuñ9 thet of some of these programs with the state. the federal government says it is a great program and you'll get it for 50 cents on the dollar.

the governors tell their constituents this. what happens in economic downturns like recessions is that states do not have the ability to go out and make up for lost revenue to pay for those programs were those programs increase because they are stabilization programs. the cost increase during an economic downturn and states are reliant on taxes and other taxes that decline in general terms. they cannot go out and borrow money at the same amount or the same rate that the fed or the federal government can. the governor has to go and knock and doors on congress and beg the setting administration for funding to make up for that call. that is an -- for that hole.

i would like to see how we rationalize the relationship with the states for these programs. guest: the biggest contributor is medicaid. the problem is that we do not have national health insurance. that would save the states from this problem. germany does not have to worry about this in a recession because they have national health insurance. france and some of the other countries that to mentioned earlier are considering something that looks more austere in their budgets. they are not talking about cutting back on their health insurance programs. that is just fundamental to how they deal with the economy and people's needs. it is a tremendous problem for the state's right now. they cannot come up with the money, but they have the obligation to cover health insurance for the poor. that is what federal aid right now is so critical. there is a bill that started at $25 billion and congress has cut

it back to about $16 billion. if congress does not send that money to this date, we will have the consequences that we talked about earlier. host: we are having a round table on the economic situation in the u.s. say happy birthday to tony fratto. guest: it is my birthday and i don't normally recognize it publicly and i try to keep it quiet. guest: facebook makes it impossible to keep your birthday secret. it seems that everybody knows this. thank you. for recognizing my birthday. host: thank you for joining the conversation on our tour page. caller: happy anniversary of your birth pare.